Tony Schwartz, creator of the “Daisy” commercial, died this past week. Schwartz will long be remembered for his insights into communication, namely the power of emotion and the role of ads to surface feelings from the audience rather than to educate the audience with facts. I made the pilgrimage to Schwartz’ compound upper West Side Manhattan compound in 1985, where he was nice enough to further elaborate for me the theories from his book “The Responsive Chord.” Anyone who is serious about being a master communicator should watch all of Tony’s old TV commercials as well as read his books.

NBC’s Tim Russert died yesterday. One of the things I will remember him for was his expert use of videotaped soundbites of his interview subjects. Russert could host nearly any politician on his or her own petard. Russert was convincing because the video didn’t lie. Russert, more than any other modern journalist, taught politicians the importance of crafting every single soundbite out of their mouths, unless they wanted the soundbites to come back to haunt them.

Speaking of Roger Ailes, he truly is the matter of the sound bite, especially when there is invective involved. If you want a weekly or daily tutorial on great sound bites, do what I do, I have set up a free Google news alert to send me an email every time Roger Ailes is mentioned in the media. Typically, I am rewarded with some golden nugget where Ailes has skewered some hapless CNN or CNBC executive. I might not agree with Ailes very often, but you can’t challenge his status as king of the sound bite.

“Dark Genius” is a new book out about the life and times of Roger Ailes, the longtime GOP political operative and Fox News Channel founder. The book isn’t great, but Ailes life is so fascinating, it almost doesn’t matter. If you are interested in media, politics, and communication, you really can’t go wrong learning more about Roger Ailes. The book earned its place at the pool this summer.

Question from a reader:

 TJ, why do you recommend that people never say “no comment”…there are plenty of times when we need to say that we decline to comment on something (pending litigation is a good example).

TJ Response:  

Barack Obama and his wife are great communicators and wonderful speakers. I like them both. But for the love of hanging chads, could somebody, PLEASE, tell them that “I” can not be the object of a preposition? Last night on CNN Michelle Obama said “for I” and then this morning on the Today Show Barack Obama said “for I.” What they said after that I couldn’t tell you because my teeth were still hurting so much. Come on, you are both Harvard Law grads. It is “for me, for me, for me!” It can never be “for Michelle and I” or “for Barack and I.” Now, me glad me got that off my chest.

Paulette Dean Daly, former wife of golfer John Daly, was asked yesterday if she had had an affair with the married baseball great Roger Clemens. Here was here response:

“You know what, I’m really uncomfortable talking about this. I’m just going to have to say ‘no comment’. I know Roger. I consider him a good friend. That’s all I’m comfortable saying.”

All of her “no comfortables” and “no comments” make her look guilty as sin, when it comes to this particular sin. Daly might as well have produced naked sex videos of her and Clemens. What she should have said was simply “Roger and I are good friends and I wish him and his family the best” and then shut her mouth. Don’t say “I’m not comfortable” and for goodness sakes, don’t say “no comment.” Ever!

So how did Barack Obama do in his handling of the Rev Wright Fiasco?

I give him an “A” for properly distancing himself from Wright’s past and current statements. I give him a “C” in terms of positioning himself against Wright for the future. And a “D- in terms of his ability to be positive and change the whole terms of the debate. Overall grade for handling this media crisis: “C+”

For starters, Obama did an excellent job of delivering sound bites using excellent emotion and absolutes in denouncing Rev. Wright’s inflammatory comments. Here are the best sound bites Obama said yesterday:

“…when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.”

“His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.”

“And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought, either.”

“I’ve already denounced the comments…”

“…an exploitation of those old divisions…”

“Reverend Wright does not speak for me. He does not speak for our campaign. I cannot prevent him from continuing to make these outrageous remarks.”

“…when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am.”

“…it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country.”

“But the insensitivity and the outrageousness, of his statements and his performance in the question-and-answer period yesterday, I think, shocked me. It surprised me.”

“But I feel very strongly that — well, I want to make absolutely clear that I do not subscribe to the views that he expressed. I believe they are wrong. I think they are destructive.”

“…what Reverend Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything that I’ve done during my life.”

“All it was, was a bunch of rants that — that aren’t grounded in truth, and you know, I can’t construct something positive out of that. I can understand it. I, you know, the — you know, people do all sorts of things.”

All in all, these are high quality sound bites, filled with emotion, absolutes, and passion—all of them irresistible to reporters looking for a quote in a story. No fair minded person can seriously conclude that Obama endorses Wright’s world view.
When it comes to separating himself from Wright of the present, I give Obama an A+ for his sound bites.

But, where I fault Obama is not giving stronger and more memorable sound bites to inoculate himself from Wright in the future. I would have urged him to say something like this:

“I pledge to the American people that if I am elected president, I will do everything I can to make sure Rev Wright has no impact on my administration’s policies. I will make sure he never steps foot onto the hallowed grounds of the White House. Furthermore any member of my administration who invites Rev. Wright to the White house or even calls him for advice will be summarily fired.”

That is a sound bite that would be widely quoted and would allay people’s concerns that Wright might have influence in the future.

Finally, I think Obama did a poor job of repositioning the issue to force the media to move beyond it. He should have said something like this:

“I have denounced my supporter, Rev. Wright’s extremist views in the most forceful manner possible, yet my opponent, John McCain, has not had to denounce the bigotry of his supporter, Rev John Hagee’s numerous bigoted remarks, nor has John McCain been asked to denounce his support, Rev. Jerry Falwell’s remarks that America deserved 9-11 because we are pro-choice. Why the double standard? I want the American voters to start demanding that the media end this double standard. Enough is enough.”

A statement like this would have forced the media to go on the defensive, changed the dynamic of the story, and forced Sen. McCain to go on the defensive, plus it would have reframed the entire issue in more neutral terms. It would also give Obama defenders a chance to feel like they are on the moral high ground and to move on the attack against the media and other political opponents.

Does anyone know of an expert in starting ad networks? I am looking to start an ad network focusing on web sites that deal with the following topics: speaking, public speaking, presentations, powerpoint and media training. If you know of anyone, please have them contact me at tj@tjwalker.com.

While I was at a cocktail party last night on 14th street in Manhattan, a publicist told me the following: “I don’t want to be on TV ever! I want to be behind the scenes. I’d hate to be a celebrity. They have awful lives. Nothing in their life can be kept secret. Please don’t ask me to ever be interviewed or to give speeches.”

Now, this attitude is an affront to my very being; and it’s a very rare attitude to hear from someone working in Manhattan in media circles. But, this publicist’s perspective is a completely normal attitude held by the vast major of Americans and other psychologically healthy people around the globe.

Two quick thoughts came to mind when I heard the publicist make this comment:

1. There is nothing wrong with valuing privacy rights above fame and fortune , and

2. It’s insanely hard to actually become famous. You don’t become famous with one interview or speech or even with 1000.

Personally, I’ve been interviewed thousands of times and/or interviewed people thousands of times. Yet I am hardly a celebrity. The only way I could get in People Magazine now is if I were to kidnap Britney Spears children.

In a fragmented media world of thousands of reality shows, and a gazillions of web sites, it’s actually harder to become a celebrity these days—not easier. And part of the process is sitting through numerous profile interviews.

One of the central elements of the celebrity manufacturing machine is the full profile interview. In a full profile interview, you often sit with a reporter for several hours; sometimes over several days or even weeks. This type of an interview is much more revealing and personal than, say, a quick interview regarding a new product launch. Unlike an interview where you are a spokesperson for a product or a company, in a profile interview, you are acting as a spokesperson for your own life. The pressure is greater in interviews like this. There is also more time for self-doubts to set in like, “Oh my god, the reporter is asking me what music is on my iPod—I’ll look like a fool if I confess I have nothing more recent on my iPod than Led Zeppelin.”

The rules of how to handle yourself in a media interview still apply during a profile interview, but it requires greater discipline due to their often lengthy nature. There are more opportunities to get too cozy with the reporter and start saying foolish, quotable things. You must still have a focused message and deliver compelling sound bites. But you’ve also got to be really interesting as a person, or the whole interview could get spiked.

So how would I let myself be profiled? See for yourself. I recently sat for several hours over a couple of days with a feature writer in Charlotte, NC.

http://www.mediatrainingworldwide.com/press-charlotte2.pdf