More Read A Speech? The US President does it well in the SOTU Speech

More readers have come to this blog for the post Read a speech rather than memorize? Sure. Just do it well. than any other. It’s been translated by Google into what must be nearly a dozen languages.

I know people don’t have time to memorize their speeches. So, we tried to offer tips on how to read a speech so that the audience would forget it was being read. (One way to read a speech is to use a teleprompter. But not many can afford it or find it appropriate to use the clear screens that flank the lectern and that deliver the written text to the speechmaker. Some say they are overused and the President of The United States – POTUS- endures a lot of this criticism for his reliance on TOTUS – Teleprompter of The United States.)

That’s not what has prompted this post. What struck me about President Obama’s State of the Union Speech (SOTUS) on January 25, 2011 was an insight that addresses a powerful element found in influential speeches that is often lost when they are read.

After the SOTUS, Time.com’s editor-at-large and Senior Political Analyst Mark Halperin wrote in his blog The Page:

“Obama’s presentation was close to flawless: upbeat and animated, leisurely and assured, surprisingly engaging even when he lapsed into the professorial mode he favors over tub-thumping. He also offered up some light, teasing humor, a rare feat for the generally sober president, whose forays into comedy often seem forced or hammy. Rehearsals with one of the Democratic Party’s best speech coaches clearly paid off, allowing him to internalize the text and focus on conveying the emotion of the words with grace and spontaneity.”

I underlined the last two lines because therein lies my point. It’s not just reading that needs to be mastered. It’s the delivery.

When I have worked with clients on presentations and speeches, a good part of my contribution is to constructively challenge the words and thoughts in the speech – the content. My intention is not to re-write the material. It is to help the client “internalize” the content. To make all of it conscious as content, not just the words on a page. It’s difficult to do this if you are the person giving the speech. So my suggestion is: get a coach. Just like a stage actor – even a veteran – has a Director to help with this.

A coach’s job is to challenge everything in the content. If you are the speech giver, don’t get defensive. Understand that explaining, say, the purpose of the speech or a line or a word, is part of a process of commitment and internalization. It’s the process to move from a level of just getting through a read with a bit of inflection to the level where we might say the thoughts and points are lifted off the page to fly to the audience instead of dully trudging through space and too often not penetrating the audience’s consciousness. The difference is performance rather than just a read.

So, the upside of reading is that we keep on track, we have an external memory (the script) to rely on and that lessens anxiety and we don’t have to memorize. The downside of reading is that without the extra work, the rehearsal and the use of the reading techniques, the read can be flat and lifeless – a fail that undermines purpose.

Why not be spontaneous, memorize or use cards as prompts? If you can do this well, by all means, use this approach. Unfortunately, too often the preparation is not good and the performance is poor. This fail damages your personal brand.

Yes, POTUS used TOTUS for SOTUS. But, because of Obama’s ownership of the content, his rehearsals with a speech coach and his use of the teleprompters to keep his eyes up and his fear of losing his place in check, we get a review with words like “flawless”, “grace”, “spontaneity”. What more could a speech giver want?

CRISIS ISN’T CONVENIENT – THAT’S WHY WE HAVE PLANS

The weekend of December 24 and 25, 2010 will be forever remembered for one of the worst weather events in New York City history.  “Thundersnow.”  “Snowmagedden.”  Twenty inches of snow in one night.  All NYC area airports CLOSED. Subway passengers marooned in their trains for hours.

No, crisis isn’t convenient. Lots of people away for the festive weekend. Little warning. Big weather event. Big consequences. So, how did the Big Apple administration respond? Badly, it would appear. But more on that in a moment.

Why have a crisis plan? Almost all organizations have a plan or plans in place for emergencies. The fire evacuation plan is the most basic example. Many organizations have business recovery plans in case something interrupts mission-critical business activities. This might be an HR issue, such as the senior leadership killed in a plane crash. It might be an information technology issue, where products or services cannot be delivered because of a software or hardware breakdown. These are operating crisis plans. Additionally, many organizations have crisis communications plans.  And they have them for a number of reasons:

1. To formalize procedures for managing an issue into a plan so that these procedures can be shared, verified, practiced, revised.
2. To reduce “thinking” time and increase speed of response, often critical to good crisis management.
3. To give the backups to the designated first responders, who might be unavailable, the “manual” of instructions to follow.

More sophisticated crisis response plans have an escalation provision that increases the response, depending upon the severity of the issue. I once worked with an organization that had a response plan that they summarized as “Get Big Quick” (GBQ) when an incident was classified as severe. How many crises may have been minimized had organizations responded with GBQ at the first sign of an impending issue? However, the organizational tendency, in my long experience, is to minimize, not maximize. They always hope the problem just goes away. Usually it doesn’t. The momentum of moving to GBQ that is lost to indecision and tentativeness has often been the difference between a well-managed issue and an out-of-control situation – which is my definition of crisis.

Well, having a plan is one thing – sticking to it is another.  The New York Daily News reported on December 29^th: “The MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) failed to follow its own emergency protocol before the blizzard that crippled large swaths of the subway system.

“The MTA didn’t declare its highest-level Winter Operations Plan 4 in effect until Sunday when the storm was underway…An all-hands-on-deck declaration should have been made on Saturday when the forecast first predicted a blizzard would slam the city, the 300-page plan says…Instead, the Level 1 plan – the lowest – was officially in effect Friday into Sunday.”

In the days following the blizzard, the Daily News chronicled the City’s tragically poor performance.  Calling out more workers for snow clearing on Christmas day brought poor results – some just couldn’t get to work. Actions taken were sometimes misguided – like sending out buses without tire chains, only to see many of them get stuck and block more streets.  Those were the operational problems. How about the communications response?

On the Monday, with the City still snowed in, the Daily News reported that Mayor Bloomberg said: “The world has not come to an end…On balance, I think you’ll find we kept the city safe and we’re cleaning it up.”

The Daily News showed in its anatomy of the storm and response that New Yorkers didn’t agree.

“Laura Freeman, 41, was among the desperate 911 callers when her elderly mother fell ill in her Corona home. By the time first responders made it through the snow-choked streets, 75-year-old Yvonne Freeman was dead.

“Later, as the distraught family watched in disbelief, Bloomberg appeared on television.  “He said, ‘It’s horrible, but take in a Broadway show,’” recalled Lisa Moyano, another of the victim’s daughters.”

Lessons to be learned

So, what are we to take from New York’s misfortune?

First, the Plan is key. Keep it current. Don’t let other objectives (like finances) diminish it (it’ll cost more to fix than is saved by skimping). Orient new employees to the Plan. Practice it. Follow it.

Second, even a good operating response will suffer if communication isn’t handled well. BP’s “I want my life back” and NYC’s “Take in a Broadway show” will live in infamy.

Third, in crisis where someone dies, no matter what words you use, “sorry” doesn’t help the dead.

EXPOSED: CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOUR COMMUNICATION GOING PUBLIC?

The two major “dumps” of sensitive communication by WikiLeaks have reverberated around the world. Embarrassing. Destructive. Worrisome. Threatening. These are just the more polite descriptions of the fall-out from the public exposure of these private communications. Governments are scrambling to do damage control and prevent another round of leaks. And businesses are not immune to the WikiLeaks mandate – a major US bank is waiting for a WikiLeaks document dump at any moment.

This isn’t new – just the volumes and importance of the communications are novel. People have been blowing the whistle, as they say, and leaking caches of communications for a long time. The solution is prevention. Simple, but far from easy. Why? It requires major behaviour change and that, I have concluded, is the hardest solution to achieve.

Leaking isn’t the only way private communication gets into the public domain. Decades ago I worked for a company whose in-house lawyer demanded that all senior management personnel get more “security” conscious about our communication. He wanted us to be careful about how we said things in our written communication, especially advice or comments that were meant for management’s eyes only. I had largely forgotten that counsel – behaviour change is hard to remember – until I saw this report about Shell Oil in The Guardian Newspaper in the UK. Everything that lawyer warned us about so many years ago became reality for Shell.

The lead paragraphs from the Guardian story paint this picture:

Secret internal company documents from the oil giant Shell show that in the immediate aftermath of the execution of the Nigerian activist and writer Ken Saro-Wiwa it adopted a PR strategy of cosying up to key BBC editors and singling out NGOs that it hoped to “sway”.

The documents offer a previously hidden insight into efforts by the company to deflect the PR storm that engulfed it after the Nigerian activist was hanged by the country’s military government. Shell faced accusations that it had colluded with the government over the activists’ death.

I do not in any way wish to minimize the seriousness of the death of Ken Saro-Wiwa by using this report as an example of the need for caution, even in internal advice communication. However, the example, as exposed in the Guardian story, powerfully shows the conflict between the very serious context and the bloodless way in which communication can sound many years later, particularly with the language that is chosen. Here’s just a sample from the report:

The documents even reveal that Shell discussed whether it should stay in the country in the wake of Saro-Wiwa’s death. One scenario was called “milking the cow”, whereas the “pull-out” scenario was seen as “giving in” or “caving in” which would set a “very negative precedent for the group”. Another reason for not leaving was that “issues of liability will not disappear even with a total withdrawal.”

So, does this mean that we shouldn’t commit our advice to written (paper or digital) form? That would bring the business/organizational world to a halt. And as I said, even though I was warned a long time ago about the dangers of legal exposure or “leaking” that we now see in the Guardian story, I have written many PR strategy documents in the intervening years and I am certain my language and my advice, at times, have been fairly strong.

After reading the Guardian story, I wrote a strategy for a client addressing a post-crisis recovery and I changed my usual behaviour as a consequence. I think the takeaways from the Guardian example include the following:

• We need to remind ourselves and others to be conscious that everything we communicate – memos, emails, tweets, voicemails, verbal comments – can be brought out in court evidence that includes testimony (where a witness testifies to what you said in a private meeting, for instance).
• Our choice of language is critical and will often be reviewed later in the absence of the emotion that provoked it or the context that explains it. Just look at the offers of resignation sparked by the WikiLeaks exposure of diplomatic cables.
• If you make a conclusion, back it up with some proof. I did this in the strategy I wrote after reading the Guardian story. It only took one more sentence.
• Speed is the enemy of well considered communication. Emails and tweets needing remediation are so frequent these days one doesn’t have to look far to find proof of this lesson.
• If you couldn’t tolerate having your communication out in the public domain, then eliminate it (and I mean by that don’t write it or say it – I don’t mean delete or shred it, which in some circumstances can be criminal offenses) or re-consider how you will communicate.

The Net shortens the News Cycle

From Politico’s Arena comes a valuable comment from Christine Pelosi on 2 counts:

1. A topical analysis of  Judge Sotomayor hearings on her nomination to SCOTUS
2. A reference to a very interesting study on how the Net shortens the news cycle today

Here it is complete with the link to the Study:

Christine Pelosi, Attorney, author and Democratic activist:

From Judge Sotomayor’s hearings, we have learned that United States Senators are on the 24-hour news cycle and Supreme Court Justices are not.

It is perhaps a historic coincidence that America’s first Internet President, Barack Obama, sent up a Supreme Court nominee for confirmation hearings the same week that Cornell University published a landmark study – “Meme-tracking and the Dynamics of the News Cycle” – that demonstrated how the web shortens the news cycle. The Cornell researchers tracked the accelerated web-based circulation of ideas – scouring 90 million articles and blog posts during the 2008 campaign for the “genetic signatures” for ideas, memes, and story lines.

They found what most Americans already intuit: the Internet shortens the time in which a meme circulates from main stream media to blogs (2.5 hours) and into the popular culture, thus words have more weight as perceived evidence of a person’s character and philosophy. The study helps explain why the role of United States Senators in this Supreme Court Justice hearing is to elevate their chosen memes (“most experienced nominee in 100 years” “wise Latina” “prosecutor” “judicial activist” “moderate” to name a few) through repetition and questioning in order to quickly frame Judge Sotomayor’s character and philosophy, capture the conversation, and build momentum to justify their vote.

Meanwhile, by contrast, the role of Supreme Court Justices is to navigate a long-term jurisprudence cycle not a short-term news cycle. Court rulings rely heavily on precedence, must endure over time, and ideally are not swayed by the passions of the moment. As Judge Sotomayor said, “we don’t rule for the home crowd.”

But before she can be elevated to a lifetime appointment to work in the long-term jurisprudence cycle, Sotomayor must endure the last unblinking look of the 24-hour news cycle. Unlike nominees of the pre-Internet era, the judge’s public utterances were captured on tape and can be taken in or out of context with the stroke of a keyboard. Sotomayor must assess the weight of her words on and off the bench to show us her personal character and judicial philosophy without prejudging cases or adding new weight to badly chosen words. In the questioning to date, Democrats emphasize her words on the bench and Republicans emphasize her work off the bench.

She has demonstrated patience, intellect, and the ability to withstand withering patrimony with aplomb. To her credit, Judge Sotomayor is attempting a candid discussion on jurisprudence that will endure over a lifetime and avoiding a gaffe that will circulate in a news cycle.

 Again:  MEME-TRACKING AND THE DYNAMICS OF THE NEWS CYCLE

Click to access kdd09-quotes.pdf

How to Control a Media Interview

By Patrick McGee

Copyright December 2008

 

If you’re afraid/concerned about where the reporter is going to take an interview, then you need to know how to control the direction of the interaction. There are three key things you want to keep in the front of your mind:

1. Own it. Consciously commit to be in charge. If this was a business meeting you were running, would you simply be reactive to the questions or direction in which the participants wanted to go? I don’t think so. You would lead the meeting and maintain a pre-determined focus. Why does this have to be the reporter’s meeting? It should be yours, even if they asked for it.
2. Prepare. Determine the interview outcome that will meet your needs, the needs of the reporter and those of the readers/viewers/listeners (that YOU decide are the target). Build the whole story – not just messages – so that you can tell that story completely, concisely and compellingly and the reporter can, at least in theory, just take that story and have a great product for their audience. Be prepared to bring the story without any stimulus from the reporter. In other words, you don’t have to wait for the questions. (I watched Richard Branson of Virgin companies’ fame tell his mobile phone story on a remote TV interview for three or four minutes without a single question from the media host because Branson’s earpiece wasn’t working and he couldn’t hear the host. So, he just launched into his story and stopped when he was finished. Brilliant!)
3. Manage the interaction using premise challenges. In effect, explain why you won’t answer a question precisely, but rather will respond appropriately, and use guiding to let the reporter know where this interaction is going. (They may not like that you’re leading but another part of them likes to know where they’re going.)

 

In my Media Training sessions at McGee+Associates I often get asked about controlling the interview: who does this well? One only has to watch television to see people who are masters, strivers and failures. But there was one situation recently that I thought provided an excellent real life example of the concepts outlined above.

 

On December 9, 2008 in Chicago, Illinois, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, along with his staff and members of the FBI, the IRS, and the Postal Service held a full-house press conference to announce the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and John Harris, his Chief of Staff, on corruption charges. (All of this was included in the notice to media, so they knew going in what the presser was about.)

 

I’m going to take you through excerpts of the transcript to show you the words Fitzgerald used to control this interaction with the media. And if you want to watch him in action you can do that here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4691428975272263845

and/or read the full transcript here: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/12/fitzgerald_press_conference_on.html

 

Fitzgerald clearly did not go into this interaction unprepared. He was in charge. He was focussed. He had a story and he told it and told it well. And he guided the media during the session and challenged the appropriateness or premise of their questions. This is the technique I’m going to illustrate below. Key points will be underlined. Any editorial comments I have will be in bracketed italics either before or after the transcript material from Federal News Service (all typos in the transcript are theirs and any others are mine) carried on the Chicago Sun-Times blog of Lynn Sweet.

 

(Fitzgerald starts the press conference by introducing his colleagues and even here he is guiding the reporters with directions and then he launches into his story which, in one paragraph, is really the essential story without the details.)

MR. FITZGERALD: Good morning. Joining me is — to my far right, is Rob Grant, the special agent in charge for the FBI office here in Chicago. To his left is Al Patton, the special agent in charge of the IRS Criminal Investigative Division, and to his left is Tom Brady, the inspector in charge of the Postal Inspection Service in Chicago. Behind me, to my left, are Carrie Hamilton, Reid Schar and Chris Niewoehner, assistant U.S. attorneys.

This is a sad day for government. It’s a very sad day for Illinois government. Governor Blagojevich has taken us to a truly new low. Governor Blagojevich has been arrested in the middle of what we can only describe as a political corruption crime spree. We acted to stop that crime spree.  (Fitzgerald, with that last sentence, has just covered off one of the weak spots in the actions he has just announced – did they act too soon? He will come back to this point/message in his story several times in the press conference and it will be easier to defend/explain as part of the story. For the next 14 minutes or so, he tells the long version of the story and lets the FBI man have his say.)

(As Fitzgerald is walking back to the lectern after Special Agent Rob Grant is finished, the first question is thrown at him. It deals with the timing issue.)

Q Mr. Fitzgerald, was this done today in an effort to head off the appointment of someone to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat? Was it so imminent that that’s why you had to step in?

MR. FITZGERALD: I would say that we decided that this required unusual measures, and there were a lot of things going on that were imminent.

There’s a bill sitting on the desk that we think a person who was supporting that bill has been squeezed to give $100,000. And to let that bill be signed to me would be very, very troubling.

There is a hospital — Children’s Memorial Hospital — believing that it’s getting $8 million, but its CEO has not coughed up a campaign contribution. And the thought that that money may get pulled back from a Children’s Memorial Hospital is something that you cannot abide.

There is an editor that they’d like fired from the Tribune. And I laid awake at night worrying whether I’d read in the paper in the morning that when there were layoffs that we’d find out that that person was laid out. The complaint– the complaint lays out, in there, in fact, when there were layoffs, there were conversations to find out whether the editor who should have — they thought should be fired was fired, and he wasn’t, and the governor was asking whether there’d be more layoffs. So we have the governors, in these modern times, the only one who’s looking for more layoffs.

You take that, what’s going on, add it to the fact that we have a Senate seat that seemed to be as recently as days ago auctioned off to the — you know, to the highest bidder for campaign contributions. And Governor Blagojevich’s own words on the tape with a bug that’s set forth in the complaint talked about selling this like a sports agent.

Q Couldn’t he just —

MR. FITZGERALD: So — I’m just — so we stepped in for a number of reasons.

Basically, as I said before, we’re in the middle of a corruption crime spree and we wanted to stop it.

(Members of press shouting simultaneous questions.)

Okay. Can we —

Q Patrick, you said —

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, just one second. No, no, let me just say one thing. We’re going to stay here as long as this is productive. We will — you’re not on a clock. We want to dispel any misperceptions. So don’t feel like you got to — anyone’s got to yell to get a question in.

Okay.

Q (Inaudible) — you said twice that we shouldn’t cast aspersions on people who we think we recognize within the complaint. Does that mean that all of these people are beyond blame in any way? I mean, some of the things in the complaint point a very kind of a tacky finger at some people, their willingness to play. And if pay to play is illegal, isn’t the willingness to play also culpable, even if you didn’t charge today?

MR. FITZGERALD: What I’m trying to say is this. Look, we never give — ….I’m never going to say no, because that’s just our practice. But I don’t want people, when I answer those questions, ….What I’m trying to do is explain caution about a complaint. …

Yes? (He points out a reporter for the next question, who says they want to know one thing, then outlines two parts with various conclusions and data .)

Q Would you please address one thing? And that is, when Blagojevich walks out of here today, unless I’m mistaken about the constitution of Illinois, he will still be governor. He will still have the power to make the appointment to the Senate seat. He will still have the power whether or not he’s going to sign the bill that you are concerned about.

Also would you address the fact — and I know you’ve referred to this — would you just address whether or not President-elect Obama was aware that any of these things were taking place?

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I’m not going to speak for what the president-elect was aware of. We make no allegations that he’s aware of anything, and that’s as simply as I can put it.

And the first part, my understanding is that he is the sitting governor of Illinois today, now, and that is not something we have any say in or control over. So at the end of the day, he will be the sitting governor.

Q In your view, in your view, Pat, in your view –

(There are lots of questions and hands waving. He sorts it out.)

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, this — and then Carlos next.

Q In your view, Pat, should the governor, on his own volition, step aside while he fights these charges, or should the Illinois state legislature move ahead with what it’s threatened to do and impeach him? What are your views on both of those?

MR. FITZGERALD: The Office of the United States Attorney has no view. We are not entitled to any view. And the view of what happens in the legislature of Illinois is not for us.  (When Ari Fleischer was George W. Bush’s Press Secretary, he might have said: “The premise of your question is not valid so I can’t answer it. But I can tell you this….” Fitzgerald just skips calling it a premise challenge and goes directly to an explanation of the fault in the premise of the question. His response is strong and clear and uses deep, as in fundamental, context to respond. Too many interviewees don’t go back far enough and miss out on using some of their strongest arguments.)

Q What do you —

Q Pat —

MR. FITZGERALD: Carlos. Carlos and then Carol (sp).

Q Pat, given the scope and the brazenness of this alleged conduct of Governor Blagojevich, what does it say that this happened despite the cautionary tale of George Ryan?

 

MR. FITZGERALD: I just — I think it tells us certainly — you know, I don’t want to jump ahead of things. Again, the governor’s presumed innocent. (Another diplomatic premise challenge. Fitzgerald could have prefaced his response with: “Your question is inappropriate based on timing.”)

Q Are you able to tell us if, in the Tribune scenario, it was the Tribune who came to you and said “We’re being extorted,” or you that went to the Tribune with this revelation?

MR. FITZGERALD: I don’t — that’s not set forth in the complaint. What we can tell you is that that was conversations we intercepted on the governor’s side, speaking to Mr. Harris about what they wanted to do…

Q So it’s conceivable, then, that the Tribune, at some level of management, was considering, or forced to consider, the governor’s alleged extortion.

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to speak for the Tribune or what happened, what message got there… So I’m not going to speculate as to…

(The following is an instructive exchange. The reporter asks about “a different matter”, an issue that is not on this day’s agenda. The reporter is trying to change the focus, whether intentional or not. Fitzgerald just says it’s not on focus and then stays in control invoking a position he has already established. Then he moves on to someone else, not taking a follow-up. Note the language that allows him to be in control.)

Q Mr. Fitzgerald, what does this say about Senator Durbin’s letter to the president requesting commutation of George Ryan’s sentence, which has only been a year of the six-and-a-half-year sentence that was imposed for the — for the crimes this office charged him with and convicted him of?

MR. FITZGERALD: And that’s a different matter. I told you the office doesn’t have a view on what happens in sort of Illinois government. We just don’t have a stake in that. To the extent the office has a view in the Ryan pardon, if we’re asked by the Department of Justice or the White House to express that view, we will do so privately. But we’re not going to — it’s inappropriate for me, on behalf of the office, to express a view where the power of pardon and commutation rests with the president. And it’s not our power — our power, and we do not make a practice of commenting to other branches of government, what they ought to do unless asked by them in private.

Yes?

Q I’ve got two questions. What does the law say about the appointment process of the U.S. Senate, you know, as it relates to the governor before his arrest? And then I have another question, is how could the appointment process of the U.S. Senate, you know, change now that, you know, the governor’s been arrested?

MR. FITZGERALD: And I’m not going to comment …I’m not going to comment on any proposed modifications.

Q Which advice would you give to anybody who would now take a senatorial appointment from Rod Blagojevich?

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I’m — I’m going to duck that one on — okay.

Yes, sir. (Why can Fitzgerald get away with ducking and moving on? Although unstated, the premise of the question is inappropriate and he knows that everyone in the room knows it, so he just moves on. If the reporter challenged him, Fitzgerald would give him the “we don’t do that” explanation. Since he’s given it once, he doesn’t use it. Some of the people I train worry that using this tactic would be rude. With the words he uses and the point having been previously established, Fitzgerald isn’t rude.)

Q We understand the governor was taken to the FBI headquarters this morning.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

Q Was he interviewed there? And did he make any kind of a statement?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not allowed to comment on whether anyone made a statement, but he was arrested and taken to the FBI.

Q Was he interviewed?

MR. FITZGERALD: I don’t think I – (Fitzgerald appeals for advice to one of his staff out of camera. So for those who think they have to know everything or else someone might think them incompetent, it’s not necessarily so. Here’s a very confident, in-command Fitzgerald, appropriately seeking counsel from one of his lawyers. No worries.)

Q (Off mike.)

MR. FITZGERALD: I don’t know if I can comment on whether we attempted an interview under the rules. I can’t comment on that.

Q Mr. Fitzgerald, would you make clear just something about the timing here? When the Tribune ran its story a few days ago revealing that the governor was being taped, would you explain — and I think some of this is laid out in the complaint — did further taping take place, or did that essentially terminate your ability to listen in?

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, what I would say is to back up, and to the extent that there have been articles I’m not confirming or denying the accuracy of the articles. You can compare them against what happened.

I will say this…

 

Q Patrick, you are always very careful to separate politics and law enforcement. …How about weighing in on a matter of civic responsibility?

MR. FITZGERALD: I think there’s enough people here who can weigh in on their opinions about things, and the citizens can weigh in with their opinions.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI do not have an opinion on what actions the legislature ought take. The only opinion we’ll express is that we hope that people with relevant information will come forward and cooperate with us.

Q You’re — you live here in Chicago. Do you trust this governor to make a good choice for the Senate, which is so important?

MR. FITZGERALD: I am a citizen of Illinois, and I do have opinions and beliefs. And what they are, are for me, because when I speak, I speak on behalf of that seal, and that seal has no opinion on that matter.

And in the back? Yes? And then you.

Q (Off mike) — confirmed so many investigations — (off mike) — be additional counts added against these defendants and others?

MR. FITZGERALD: What we’ll simply say is the investigation continues. We’re not going to predict that other charges will or will not be filed.

Yes?

Q You spoke before about if Senator — you didn’t know — no awareness that Senator or President-elect Barack Obama knew about this. So is it safe to say he has not been briefed? And can you also tell us if any phone calls were made to President-elect Obama that you intercepted, or to Rahm Emanuel?

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I’m not going to go down anything that’s not in the complaint.

And what I simply said before is, I’m not going to — I have enough trouble speaking for myself. I’m not going to try and speak in the voice of a president or a president-elect.

So I simply pointed out…. And that’s all I can say.

(Fitzgerald is not afraid of the media. He is prepared to manage the interactions. The questions are getting more speculative rather than fact seeking. Here’s a light exchange.)

Q What will be your position — what will be your position at this afternoon’s hearing on detention or bond for the governor?

MR. FITZGERALD: I don’t expect there’s going to be a contentious issue about bond, but we’ll — Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan will be handling that proceeding. I think she can hear the specifics from us for the first time in court. But —

Q You won’t oppose — (off mike).

MR. FITZGERALD: I think Judge Nolan should hear what our position is, not through your excellent reporting but through our (assistants/assistance ?) telling him what it is.

Q How would you categorize this — (off mike) — compared to other things that you’ve seen? How would you categorize it?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to go beyond saying that just we — the conduct we think is appalling. I’m not going to do a comparative to other cases, but I just think it’s very, very disturbing that we have these pay-to-play allegations going on for years, and that they picked up steam after a conviction, they picked up steam after an ethics-in-government act, and that it would go so far as to taint the process by which the governor and his inner circle of advisers were choosing someone to take a seat in the United States Senate to represent Illinois.

Q (Off mike) — said that Senate candidate number five took herself out of the running after this was made apparent to her? Can we gather that is Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to confirm or deny any names with numbers. I just can’t.

Q You do name the governor’s wife in this. And you quote her in the charges. Can you recount for us what she said and what her role was as it’s laid out in the charge?

MR. FITZGERALD: Since I don’t — (inaudible) — won’t quote it accurately, there’s a paragraph, I believe, … I think I’ll just leave you to looking at the complaint and —

Q If she what the governor has been charged with, why wouldn’t she be charged if she’s saying the same thing?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to comment on anyone not charged. I’ll simply say ….

Q Mr. Fitzgerald, I have a question….

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you hit on two questions. One is a legal distinction.

 

 

Q Mr. Fitzgerald?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes?

Q Sir, just to be crystal-clear on this point, you’re not aware of any conversation, then, that took place between the governor and any member of Barack Obama’s transition team at all?

MR. FITZGERALD: And what I simply said is you can read the complaint. I’m not going to sit here with a 76-page complaint and parse through it. You know, that’s all we’re alleging. And I’m just — I’m not going to start going down and saying, “Did anyone ever talk to anyone?” You can read what we allege in the complaint. It’s pretty detailed. Look in the 76 pages, and if you don’t see it, it’s not there.

Q In the briefings that President-elect Obama has had over the past weeks with various government departments here, would it be possible for him to have been briefed on what was going on here with regard to this investigation?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to comment on that. I’m not the briefer. I’m not at those meetings. But I would simply say that this was very close-hold in Washington, and on a need-to-know basis. So I’m — but I’m not going to — I’m not the briefer, so I’m not going to represent what happens. But — I’ll leave it at that.

Q Pat?

Q Is there anything —

Q Will you quantify the number of calls that you’ve gotten –

(At this point the questions are getting out of control and Fitzgerald reasserts authority with clear direction – it gives the media direction and they settle down. This kind of control can be asserted one-on-one just as well as in a group.)

MR. FITZGERALD: Sorry? Okay. After Carol (sp), we’ll go do a ring around the back.

Q Pat, one of the things I think that people out there look at is, the governor’s known he’s been under investigation for several years now, and yet he would still engage, allegedly, in this kind of activity. What does it say about the audacity of the governor to do this while he’s under investigation and knows it?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’ll leave that for you to draw your own conclusions. It’s a pretty audacious set of conversations set forth in the complaint, in the circumstances.

In the back? Yes.

Q Which union did the governor solicit in exchange for the Senate appointment?

MR. FITZGERALD: I think it’s laid out in the complaint that it’s …and again, I’m not going to describe more than is in the complaint —

Anyone else in the back?

Q Can the FBI comment on at all on the search warrant that was executed for the governor’s office at the Thompson Center?

MR. FITZGERALD: That’s — I don’t think it’s the governor’s office at the Thompson Center. There’s a search warrant — can we say where? (Fitzgerald again defers to his staff and doesn’t proceed with his answer without guidance.)

MR. FITZGERALD: It’s at the office of Deputy Governor — a deputy governor. And there’s a search warrant being executed at the Friends of Blagojevich campaign headquarters.

Q Right now?

Q Can I ask you one, Pat?

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, one more. I just want to get the — I want to make sure —

Q Can you help me with a matter of law, a question of law…?

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, and I’m not going to get into hypotheticals that you’ll abstract, from the complaint, and start going down that road.

Q I was just wondering, is — I haven’t read the full complaint either — is Rezko going to be testifying regarding this case at all? (Off mike.)

MR. FITZGERALD: I think there’s a discussion of Mr. Rezko, in a footnote, somewhere in the complaint. And I couldn’t tell you the footnote number. But if you look there, there’s a succinct summary of his status, in that footnote, that I won’t try to repeat out loud.

And yes. Who’s next?

Q If a Tribune executive did agree to fire somebody on the editorial board, as an exchange for this, would it be criminal behavior? And can you characterize at all how far the Tribune plot went?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to say how far the Tribune plot went, other than the person who was identified, as the person to be fired, was not fired and still works there today….We don’t go beyond that. I’m not going to opine …

Q Pat, you spoke very directly about why the indictment had to come now.

(Fitzgerald makes sure the reporters have their facts straight in this premise challenge.)

MR. FITZGERALD: First of all, there’s not an indictment, I realize. It’s a complaint. So I don’t want people to understand it’s an indictment. We’ve filed a criminal complaint.

Q State lawmakers said this morning they’d like to see impeachment proceedings within — (off mike) — January. Now, I understand impeachment is somewhat — something like a trial. Would you assist them in any sense or with any of the evidence you’ve prepared — (off mike)?

MR. FITZGERALD: I thought about a lot of things this morning. That one hasn’t come up yet. And I’m not going to take it off the top of my head and spring. So we’ll go from there.

STAFF: Thank you very, much folks.

END. (Yes, the end of an hour-long masterful performance of managing the interaction with a room full of reporters. The language of control and premise challenge that Patrick Fitzgerald used is the type of language that we use each and everyday in our interactions with colleagues, clients, suppliers, family and friends. Fitzgerald has shown that it is equally appropriate and extremely useful in controlling a multi-lateral media interview. I know it works in one-on-one interviews as well. )

 

 

 

 

SPITZER APOLOGY – BELIEVABLE STATEMENT OR B.S.?

I didn’t believe any of it. Not one word of Eliot Spitzer’s televised resignation statement was believable to me. (OK, the part about resigning and the date maybe.) And for every executive or corporate spokesperson who may one day have to do something similar, take a lesson. The words don’t mean a thing if they don’t have that certain body language and tone.

Eliot Spitzer said these words: “In the past few days I’ve begun to atone for my private failings with my wife Silda, my children and my entire family.” His wife was standing right beside him. Did he look at her? No. Did he even slightly turn his body in acknowledgement that she was there? No. Did he look at the camera to communicate with his eyes that he meant the words? No. He read. He was a proficient reader. But he was not believable. I think if he meant those words, he would have made some gesture towards his wife, let alone look her in the eye, when he said them. I think, if he really meant what he was saying, he would have used non-verbal expression to support the words on the page. He went on to say: “Words cannot describe how grateful I am for the love and compassion they have shown me.” He was right. So, where was the gesture towards that representative of the family, standing so close by in support? There wasn’t one. More. “I am deeply sorry I did not live up to what was expected of me.” No eye contact with anyone. Oh yes, his eyes flicked up and down as he read, but you could tell his eyes were not connecting with anyone. Finally, he changed the pace of the delivery, looked up and delivered the word “sincerely”, to the cameras. Why? He was talking to the people of New York. As in: “To every New Yorker, and to all those who believed in what I tried to stand for, I sincerely apologize.”  I would have thought his wife was one of those and deserved some eye contact. Apparently not. Maybe she knew better. The performance never improved. He had his chance: “As I leave public life, I will first do what I need to do to help and heal myself and my family…..” Still no acknowledgement of the family rep stating next to him. (If you want to see a powerful, non-verbal performance watch this announcement but focus on Silda. She makes eye contact with the media and with someone off screen. She obviously had her reasons for being there and I thought she was very strong, not just for showing up, but for her performance.)

We all have our own idea of what remorse/contrition looks and sounds like. We use that filter to evaluate the words we hear to determine credibility and trust. Mehrabian’s analysis of an emotional communications moment says that the body language and voice make up 93% of the trust value. That leaves only 7% for the words. Spitzer gave us the words but left out the rest. Business people beware. This bell tolls for thee as well.