Death of the Oval Office Address?

I just watched the beginning of President Obama's Oval Office address regarding the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  I was surprised that I felt compelled to turn it off.

His words, as usual, seem on target, on message.  They had the right levels of muted anger toward BP, compassion toward Gulf region residents and business owners.

My issue, it seems, isn't with the content of the message, but with the medium.  Simply, I'm not used to seeing him perform this way.  I'm used to seeing the President behind the lectern or working the crowd in a "town hall" type of setting.

Today, the President wanted to do what those before him have done in times of national crisis.  He sought to leverage the gravity of the Oval Office.

I think he failed.

Today, we see him sitting behind a desk where his natural hand gestures seem comical and distracting, his reading of the Teleprompter, unnatural.  The result?  For me, it's the impression this man doesn't belong behind this desk.  He seems out of his element.  In some ways, too small.

Typically, I talk about the message.  I think President Obama should have paid more attention to the medium.

I Agree with Hamas

That President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is stunning. According to various reports, Hamas says he is not yet deserving of such an honor because he has yet to accomplish anything in terms of peace.

From a public relations perspective, he should have said, "Thanks, but no thanks." (Or, at least, "Not yet.")

How, pray tell, can anyone take this seriously? You can read plenty online - in all sorts of media outlets whether left, right or center - about how laughable and embarrassing it is to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize before actually doing anything. Even the President's most ardent supporters are slightly confused.

I'd argue that accepting this honor does more to tarnish his incredible reputation than bolster it.

Power of Iconography

A friend sent me this video. It's long, but interesting, and most definitely worth the eight minutes, or so. Clearly, he's anti-Obama, but that's not what I find gripping about it.

"I may not agree with what you say..."

If you know who said that - without Googling it - you win a prize.

Interesting happening last night during the President' speech. He was heckled. No one can seem to recall the last time a President was yelled at during an address to a joint session of Congress.

A couple of questions, though. (1) Was this a planned move by Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, or spur-of-the-moment? (2) Should we care about the outburst?

First, I don't think this was a planned event. The New York Times reports that Wilson immediately bolted from the room when the President finished. Further, such outbursts, in such high-profile events, are always seen as, well, loopy. By all estimates, Wilson did nothing to advance the Republican Party cause.

Second, yes, we should care about such a breach of protocol, but perhaps not for the reason you think. Protocol exists to maintain order, to ensure no one offends anyone else, and so on. (Is anyone else thinking of Goldie Hawn right now?) But, times are changing. The rules of communication are changing. Conversations don't take place any more; shouting matches do. If you don't believe me, take a look at what passes for "news" these days: two talking heads talking over each other with a smirking host who adds nothing.

So, yes, we should care about the outburst, in my opinion, because I think it's a harbinger of more change coming to Washington, the country and the world, in the way we communicate with one another.

Talking off-the-cuff. Not such a good idea.

It's been a while since I posted. Maybe you see that as a lack of commitment. In fact, I recently read a posting about just that. Something along the lines of, if you don't post regularly, it shows lack of commitment. People who read you are then led to think, "What else is he not committed to?"

I don't see it that way. In fact, my feeling is just the opposite.

Why post if you have nothing to say? Posting for posting's sake is kind of like that annoying kid in class who would ask a question just to insert him/herself further up the teacher's butt. Or, the annoying bigger kid in a meeting who will speak but add nothing other than an over-complicated summary of what everyone else just said...

So, I don't post for posting's sake.

Shifting gears, sort of...

Question: When does it make sense for the President of the United States (Yes, always capitalized.) to comment on a local police matter?

Answer: Never.

I was shocked that President Obama found it necessary to comment at all about the arrest of Harvard Professor Louis Henry Gates. (Capitalized because it's a title, as opposed to Louis Henry Gates, a Harvard professor.) To me, it seemed like the President acted stupidly. Perhaps, because Gates is Obama's friend, the President wanted to stick up for him. Nonetheless, one would think the President would have the wherewithal to say something like, "I'm not sure of all the facts and I have every confidence the Boston PD will work it out. Next question." But he didn't. And now, there's another thing on the President's plate that will take him away from real work he should be doing.

In public relations it's equally important to know when to keep your mouth shut.

Kudos to PETA

Apparently, while taping an interview with CNBC, President Obama swatted a fly.



Breaking news? Hardly. But it's funny to see.

Our friends at PETA, however, get the Opportunistic PR Award for the following item. They believe in the protection of ALL animals, regardless of size or how annoying they are.

Master Communicator

President Obama just spoke in Cairo. I caught some of it live on tv.

I'll say up-front that I didn't like some of what he said, but there's no denying the man's an orator. His cadence is hypnotic; his tone alluring.

I guess I was wrong. Sometimes, the message isn't as important as the style because if people were really listening to the content of his message, they'd be a bit less in love.

Milestones - 100 Days

I've always wondered why presidents seem fixated on their "first 100 days." I don't have an answer why 100 is a magic number, other than the fact that it's a nice, round, somewhat big number.

Why not 30 days? Or 90? That would make sense; it's a quarter - a measure used in business.

When I start working with a new client, I often get asked, "How long until we see results?" My advice never wavers. When it comes to a public relations campaign, you'll know if it's working within the first 60 - 90 days. If, in that time, there's no movement in terms of media interest, you're either (1) doing something wrong or (2) there's just no story.

At all costs, I avoid guaranteeing anything in terms of media coverage. My feeling is that any PR pro who guarantees hits is up to no good. You can have an incredible story, seemingly perfectly timed, with every piece in place, but then something bigger breaks and you're toast.

Just ask President Obama. His 100th day is tomorrow and, in all likelihood it will be overshadowed by swine flu.

Heeeeere's Barak!

Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you know that President Obama appeared last night on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. It was a big deal. A sitting president has never done that before. And, of course, everyone has an opinion.

Including me.

It wasn't a mistake for him to schedule the appearance and, in retrospect, it went well. The only gaffe came when the president compared his bowling ability to the Special Olympics.

So, does this mean that sitting presidents now have to do the late night circuit? No, and we can all learn a lesson. Every media appearance and speaking opportunity for any spokesperson or chief executive needs to be judged in terms of importance and weighed against the person's ability to handle the situation. Obama did well because he thinks on his feet and doesn't seem to have to rely on thoroughly canned talking points. Also, he's usually rather funny.

Imagine if President Bush had tried the same.

Bottom line: it went well and it was a positive experience. As my favorite television president says, "What's next?"

Further evidence of the winds of change in DC

President Obama is doing what no president since Grover Cleveland has done: he is shunning the Gridiron Club's annual dinner. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing.

But definitely IS a thing.

It's widely recognized that the election of President Obama marks a shift in the relationship between the establishment and the media. He is the first president to have made successful use of "new" media. The white house web site has been revamped and is being used in ways akin more to a startup than the executive branch of government. If I'm not mistaken, the first question in the first press conference given by the new preisdent was asked by a blogger.

Now, the Gridiron representatives say they are not effended and the president's people say none was meant. But one has to admit, the excuses offered are somewhat weak.

No matter what your opinion - good or bad - you have to agree that this administration is doing everything it can to change the way news is reported in DC and around the world.

You know it's a slow news day...

That The New York Times and Foxnews.com both have as their lead items the graying of President Obama can only mean one thing: it's a slow news day.

Given the current economy, wars and everything else, I guess it's good news that the most important item of the day is that the President has a stressful job.