Politico asked this question today: “What if George W. Bush had done that?”  The post chronicled a list of actions (and lack of action) for which for former President was excoriated, but the for which the current President avoided criticism.

In the post, “Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?  And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?”

The answer offered is “context is everything.”

Last year, in the trade publication, PR Week and prompted by the nomination battle between Senators Obama and Clinton, I suggested that communications had become all about context.

The article requires a subscription, so here are the essential parts:

“More than frequency, authenticity, and empathy, effective communications must be built on credible context.

“When Hillary Clinton said she would end the war in Iraq, her commitment was undercut by prior actions, such as her votes on the original Iraq war resolution and the labeling of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as ‘terrorists.’ The market-tested message of ending the war, delivered consistently, might have been the truth, but voters came to hear it as non-credible and inconsistent.

“These forces came into play to the benefit of John McCain. At a meeting in the Rose Garden with President Bush, McCain’s visible discomfort reinforced his credible context as a maverick. In contrast, voters found the ‘conversions’ of his competitors far less credible.

“Manage these risks and the results are powerful. Barack Obama took those lessons and made them his own. He began by being adamant about ending the war. Before even entering the US Senate, he had publicly opposed the Iraq war resolution. Voters saw this as credible context for his position; when he opposed the Iran vote, it added to his support - even though he skipped the actual vote.”

Amidst the snark of Politico’s story is an object lesson for any candidate, company or institution seeking to earn your (or my) vote, purchase or contribution.  Success is not a snappy turn of phrase, it requires a consistent commitment.b

Share

It was just a week ago that White House Communications Director Anita Dunn declared that Fox News was the research arm of the Republican Party and that it would now be treated as the opposition.

In the week since there have been predictable stories.  The Administration is setting a dangerous precedent.  President Obama has more important matters.  Fox’s ratings are up.   Never pick a fight with the media.

This last storyline was the subject of David Carr’s column in the NY Times’ “Week in Review.”  In “The Battle is Joined; Now What?”, Carr catalogs past Presidential attempts to confront media criticism.  He concludes that “trading punched with cable shouters seems to be a fit too common.”

He is missing a point or two.  So I told him in this email just sent:

Mr. Carr,

Your FOX/Obama “tale of the tape” ignores three excellent reasons for the Administration to pick this particular battle.

I could add a fourth, too.  In the current media landscape, it is no longer a problem to pick a fight with someone, as used to be said, buys ink by the barrel.  The media landscape is so fragmented, no matter who is buying the ink, there is a lot more being bought by others.

Share

From a communications perspective, the cost of health care reform has trumped the cost of not reforming a system that has 47 million Americans on the outside looking in.  They and their advocates have been vocal in support of change.

As a participant in the nation’s health care system and a card carrying member of an insurance plan, it has been a surprise that the 250 million Americans like me aren’t raising a ruckus for reform, too.  After all, who better to see the short-comings of the health insurance system than those who are covered by it?

This quiet may be broken now with release of a report from a group called, America’s Health Insurance Plans.  According to news reports,  “The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013 (and) Premiums for a single person would go up by $600.”

It may be that rather than reinforcing a fearful silence among those of us that have to deal with rising premiums, reluctant reimbursements, a labyrinth of seemingly contradictory rules and unilateral program ineligibility, this latest log tossed on the fire of opposition may throw enough light on the role the health insurance plans play in our rising national anxiety.

This is no clearer than in the Catch-22 of the pre-existing condition.  If the standard delivery of health care is by employment, losing or changing jobs makes everything an pre-existing condition and opens the door to diminished coverage.  Is that sane?

One insurance company advocate pile on when he presented the financial equation this way:

“The taxes imposed on insurance companies in the Senate Finance bill are certain to be passed on to consumers,” says Joel Kopperud, government relations director at the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Washington. “They encourage employers to cut ancillary benefits to avoid crossing the tax threshold, and even the Congressional Budget Office says that the proposed fees will result in higher premiums.”

For at least one person — me — not only does this “rolls down hill” approach potentially fire the national imagination for reform, but price controls, too.  And about the “camel’s back,” is it a metaphor for the last straw.

Share

Setting aside why the Star Spangled Banner is even played or sung before sporting events in the United States, who is responsible for it being done so badly so often?

At a Major League Baseball game again today, the scene recurred.  A perfectly presentable “recording artist” took the mic between the plate and the rubber to, it seems, get this party started.  Rather than perform a straight forward version of the anthem written in 1814, the singer took us all on a circuitous ride from dirge to trill.  And, sadly, not very well.

Who is responsible for making singers otherwise likely able to carry a pretty good tune, so often reach beyond their grasp?  If the National Anthem is a symbol of the nation’s values, then what does it say about us that such a casual approach is applauded?

The game changed in 1968 when Jose Feliciano sang the Anthem before Game 5 of the World Series between the Detroit Tigers and St. Louis Cardinals.  Whether it really was the first personalized rendition of the Anthem or the first one televised or the first seen by the number of people who watched those games in those days, Feliciano created a stir.

The deal was closed a little over 22 years later when Whitney Houston sang her version of the Anthem at a time of war in January 1991 before Super Bowl XXV between the Buffalo Bills and the New York Giants.   Her version has raised millions for charity.

The fact is, though each of us may be terrific at something, we are not all similarly talented.  This is a good lesson and check on otherwise embarrassing behavior in most venues, but not so much in the sporting ones.  Listen no further than to Carl Lewis’ Anthem attempt at an NBA game in 1993 and you’ll appreciate the logic of playing to our diversity rather than our inner Jose or Whitney.

When Francis Scott Key saw the stars-and-stripes of the flag after a night’s bombardment during which he was unsure of the outcome, it brought him a wave of relief and us a National Anthem.  Today, too often, the wave of relief comes only when the last note fades.

It strikes me that, whatever else a singer is, a singer is a communicator.  They have a special vocabulary, sure, but still they are communicators.  The lesson to draw from those who do it well is to be grateful for their talent.  The rest of us need to remember that if the audience is put-off or distracted from the lyrics — the message — by the way they are delivered, the chance to be heard is lost.

That is too high a price to pay.

Share