General Petraeus Makes A Big Public Relations Mistake (UPDATED)
You’d think that tomorrow night after giving his report to Congress Gen. David Petraeus would try to maximize his message by not in any way getting enmeshed in anything that would appear as if he’s being political or trying to evade journalists who may have tough questions.
But the latest is that after his address tomorrow he and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will give — you guessed it — Fox News an EXCLUSIVE interview.
So much for a p.r. campaign that will extend beyond pulling out all stops to try and shore up more than just the Republican Party’s base.
The reality is even though Fox News does have some excellent journalists, it has the reputation of being essentially the administration’s favorite media outlet (along with appearances on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity). Rightfully or wrongfully, it has the reputation of going easier on administration officials than newspeople of other networks do.
If the administration and Pentagon had political smarts, they would let the General talk to Fox and at least one other news network immediately after his talk.
But now they will be open to charges — rightfully or wrongfully — that they went on a network widely seen as “friendly,” a network skewed to Republicans once again indicating that the administration runs a government of the base, by the base and for the base.
That may be unfair, but just watch the reaction. By giving an exclusive interview to Fox, journalists from other outlets including the print media are going to conclude that the administration has some things to hide because they didn’t have the guts to send their key people out to talk to reporters who might ask tougher and more hostile questions and confront the toughest questions, challenges and even hostile attitudes head-on.
PS: I’m a former reporter and that’s my impression as well. They’re opting for a highly-controlled P.R. campaign and, if the goal was to win over independent voters and convince some non-progressive Democrats to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, many will conclude — rightfully or wrongfully — that Petraeus and the Ambassador were going to Fox to control the kind of questioning and also reward Fox for being such great buds to them in times of increasing media criticism.
The problem: they don’t only need to win over the choir.
UPDATE: Donklephant has the same reaction:
I won’t mince words here. They went with Fox because they are friendlier and they’re trying to appeal to their base. That’s it and there’s really no mystery about that.
However, this is the people’s government, not the Republican’s government, and Petraeus shouldn’t be granting exclusive interviews to ANY network, let alone one that has taken a stance on where they fall in the political spectrum. Bush should know better by now, but he’s more interested in trying to salvage his legacy at this point, and holding his decisions up to increased scrutiny isn’t in the game plan.
UPDATE II: Andrew Sullivan is on the same wavelength as well:
If Drudge is right and the general and the ambassador are going to give Fox News’ Brit Hume an exclusive hour-long sit-down, then it seems to me they forfeit any pretense of neutrality. They really need either to stick to the Congressional testimony, or appear on more outlets than a purely Republican network. It’s extremely important for the integrity of the US military – and the credibility of Petraeus – that it remain above partisanship and even the appearance of partisanship. Here’s hoping Drudge is wrong. They couldn’t be that stupid, could they?
UPDATE III: For a completely different take on this, be sure to read Blue Crab Boulevard.
26 Responses to “General Petraeus Makes A Big Public Relations Mistake (UPDATED)”
Can’t blame him for giving an exclusive interview to Fox. It’s the only place he can be sure of being treated with kid gloves and having no tough questions asked.
[...] From TMV: The reality is even though Fox News does have some excellent journalists, it has the reputation of being essentially the administration’s favorite media outlet (along with appearances on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity). Rightfully or wrongfully, it has the reputation of going easier on administration officials than newspeople of other networks do. [...]
The truth of the matter is that Bush is just playing this PR game and has no intention of winning over any American voter (the vast majority already disapprove of the war). Bush’s gameplan is to stall and force Dems in Congress to go along with his plans. Bush only has to limp along and stall until next year’s elections. Bush’s PR strategy is to present the facts and figures he needs and those will be the facts in the court of public opinion, and the facts Bush will use to make any future case he needs to make. At this point any truly moderate or independent person does not support Bush (and most Republicans don’t either) so an appearance on a non-friendly network, which might bring to light some uncomfortable truths, would only hurt Bush and Petraeus so why should be even bother? It’s not like he’s President of the United States and feels accountable to the citizens of this country. Bush does what Bush wants.
We all know that by next April or so Bush will be forced to start bringing troops home (unless he wants to do the draft thing or lengthen the rotation times for the existing troops). Come next Spring I’m sure he’ll say that sufficient gains have been made in Iraq and that’s proof that his strategy has worked.
In fact it would not surprise me that in the next couple of weeks Bush announces that as evidence of the effectiveness of the surge, he will start bringing home troops shortly. But only a minscule number. And even though only a small number may come home Bush can always claim he brought troops home early.
Once troops start coming home, Bush will have thrown the Democrats into a snake pit. And this is why Bush/Petraeus doesn’t feel the need to have a respectable or honest PR campaign. Regardless of what happens in Iraq (good or bad) Bush will always be able to use that for his benefit. If, after Bush brings home some troops, Iraq goes badly (or Bush needs to claim that the situaiton in Iraq is going badly to discredit Demsocrats) Bush can point to statistics showing deteriorating conditions in Iraq. Bush will of course say that he should not have compromised with the Dems). As to how Bush would show a deteriorating situation is very clear. There is an online article in the Washington Post, “Experts Doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq” which shows that the White House uses its famous fuzzy math to show signs of progress in Iraq. The violence statistics do not include Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni attacks (among others). Already the Government Accountability Office has rejected those figures adn Bush’s latest example of his fuzzy math. At any rate if Bush needs to descredit the Demsby showing worsening conditions in Iraq (or wants to show conditions worsening even more) then all the White House needs to do is start including these numbers from the Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence that are now being excluded. The White House is excluding them now to make it’s case that Iraq has improved, so there’s nothing to prevent the White House from including them again if it needs to for political advantage. If you still don’t believe he would stoop to such a level and manipulate casualties in Iraq for partisan political purposes, then what, exactly, is he doing now with his fuzzy math?
If, in the other hand, Iraq does indeed improve (and I’d like to see a show of hands as to how many of us actually believe it will) then Bush can claim the victory as his and his alone. He’ll claim he made the tough decision and resisted the Dems’ calls for troop withdrawals until the time was right.
So whatever happens in Iraq Bush can claim victory and the Republicans’ retention of the White House in 2008 is the biggest political prize and far more important to Bush than what happens in Iraq. Bush in the past has shown that he will divide the American people (rather than lead them) for his own (and Republican) political gains.
So whatever happens in Iraq Bush will be able to use once again the oldest gameplan in his book- that the Dems are weak on national security and the American people need to elect a Republican to continue the “good fight down the long road” or some such drivel.
Unfortunately the Dems can’t win this. They care more about their short term political ratings and don’t see the trap that Bush has built for them to walk into (again). What is the quote that Bush mangled, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”
Regardless of which party wins the 2008 race for President, once the 2008 election is over I’m sure we will get a much better picture of the dire situation Iraq is in. So, once again, Bush and Petraeus are not making a big PR mistake. Their numbers and credibility are already low and the Republicans are biting the bullet now with a much more important prize at stake- the 2008 elections. Bush just needs to get certain facts in the public record and established as fact (even if it’s inaccurate) so he can lay the groundwork for future Republican victories.
Mistake?
I have disagreed with Joe Gandelman on occasion; more often we agree on a lot of points. In this case, I'm going with the disagree. Joe points out that he thinks General David Petraeus is making a Public Relations mistake by granting an e…
An excellent post…particularly so as Joe with appropriate moderation cites Blue Crab’s opposing argument.
The format of the Presidential Debates is a good analogue to understand what is happening here re: Petraeus report to Congress. Before the debatre both parties try to spin expectations…then “work the refs” in the media afterward.
StockboySF cites the Washington Post & the GAO report, without realizing they are also part of this spin cycle. It has been impossible to read the NYT or the WashPost in recent days without seeing variations of Pelosi’s/Reid’s talking points on Iraq and smears of Petraeus.
As evidence of this process at work: The WashPost was embarrassed at few months back at their error in reprinting Sen.Levin’s (D) spin on a to-be-released Intelligence report verbatim, only to find they were being played when the real report came out afterward and was not as damning of Bush as Levin implied. I imagine favours are being called in everywhere by the Democrats to spin Petraeus’ report and smear Petraeus personally.
Thus, as for playing only to Fox, in the context of this pro-Dem spin in the primary media outlets Blue Crab has a point: “At some point you have to refuse a rigged game or just give up. “
I disagree. Brit Hume is perhaps the best anchor in Cable-TV since its inception and, aside from perhaps Charlie Rose, is the smartest and most knowledgeable anchor on Iraq.
The problem lies in the frequent tendency of network anchors to conform to the predisposition of their peers [other than Fox] that the war in Iraq has already been lost and that the “surge” is some sort of Hail Mary pass or Potemkin Village PR stunt.
That predisposition leads to lines of questioning like “MANY OBSERVERS BELIEVE” and other lead-ins which produce a debating situation rather than an exposition of the latest situation ON THE GROUND as his judgments concerning facts on the ground are what Petraeus wants to convey. Far too often, the networks and CNN act as mere extensions of the Senate/House Committee politicized atmospherics—with tendentious and even condescending questions inadvertantly revealing the anchor’s own biases.
That said, Anderson Cooper or Charlie Rose would have been good choices that would have avoided the appearance of Petraeus doing PR. However, the MSM has already discounted everything he & Crocker are going to say as PR, so why should they be given a forum to do their smirking and “winks & nods” on air?
I believe the electronic & print media, including blogs & on-line sources, have been hyperventilating and hysterical for so long and yelling about bad faith & dishonesty without revealing anything more than the normal wartime slip-ups that the MSM has disgraced itself.
Why give an irresponsible media outlet an opportunity to limit or distort what Petraeus and Crocker want to say?
Fox won’t, and Brit Hume is a good enough journalist to ask probing questions without being tendentious.
Its a huge error. If nothing else- for symbolic reasons. Most Democrats see Fox as being the administration’s mouthpiece; friendly territory where the outlook for Iraq is always optimistic. Fox rarely shows the daily bombings and funerals in Baghdad, and the only nonconservative worth his salt is Juan Williams.
When Cheney travels, his hotel rooms must be tune to Fox and Fox alone- he’d never be caught dead watching MSNBC.
This signals that outreach to Democrats and Independents by the WH is nominal, Bush will do whatever he pleases in Iraq.
I think choosing FOX was a mistake, but a very typical move for this administrations.
It’s not a question of whether FOX did a good job with the interviews or not, but the administration can’t help but be aware of how controversial FOX is. They always choose to rev up the controversy and play to party divisiveness, without for a second considereing how that dooms any chances for national unity, and that at a time when unity is most sorely needed. Sometimes i get the impression, they would be prepared to destroy the country entirely in order to get their way.
Appearances matter. By failing to find a more neutral venue, we are given the appearance of them tyring to rig the game, whether that’s true or not. I say it’s not worth it, Of course, I care more about the nation that about either party of the President’s legacy.
[...] Gandleman of “The Moderate Voice” makes the argument that General Petraeus has made a BIG PR mistake by appearing solely on Fox. So much for a p.r. [...]
Outreach?
Sheesh Krit, the Kossacks/MoveOn Dems are calling Petraeus a traitor in tomorrow’s NYT.
Do we know for a fact that other media outlets offered him an interview after the presentation? I would imagine they did, but this is something that needs verification before making a judgement about Petraeus’s decision.
This should come as no surprise after the Hewitt interview. Petraeus is not going to go to any media outlets wher someone might actually ask him real questions like “why do your assesments seem to be in conflict with all of the others”. After reading his 2004 editorial it became obvious he was a politician first and a soldier second.
[...] also: The Moderate Voice; Donklephant; Crooks and [...]
I think the posters defending the decision to go to Fox as a way to avoid the “predisposition of their peers [other than Fox] that the war in Iraq has already been lost” are at least partially missing the point. Democrats, Independents, and increasingly Republicans feel like they have been misled by the Bush administration about Iraq. The lack of WMDs, “last throes”, “we do not torture”, “Mission Accomplished”, and equating Iraq with September 11 have made the Bush administration looked detached from reality and unfit to lead a war. When Petraeus took over there was at least a hope that he would be someone who would stick to the facts and maintain independence from the administration. It was hoped that if things could be turned around he would say so, and if they could not that he would honestly report that conclusion. However, by going straight from the Capitol to talk to Fox News (and only Fox News) he is doing exactly what any other Bush administration official would do, and thus undermining his credibility as an independent military leader who reports facts without spin. The Bush administration has already lost public opinion, and by even giving the impression of being another cog in the political machine Petraeus diminishes his own credibility, and thus the credibility of any report he gives.
Ron Beasley writes “After reading his 2004 editorial it became obvious he was a politician first and a soldier second.”
This is a great point. For those of you who don’t recall what Petraeus wrote JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION, here’s are some excerpts:
Specifically, he declared that “Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt,†that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward†and that “there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security.â€
Sure seems to look, walk and quack like a duck.
Of course, I have this feeling that if I tune in to Faux Nooz, I will be told that it is, in fact, a giraffe.
I agree it’s a mistake. I do also agree with BlueCrabBoulevard’s reasoning for his dissent, but even if other networks are hostile territory Petraeus should be quite able to handle hard ball questions.
It’s true that the Dem base has completely shut their minds to any possibility that positive news from Iraq might be true, and to that extent, the WH is not wrong to aim it’s message more toward the remaining people who will still listen. However, just as some here tend to overgeneralize the distrust of all things related to Bush or Fox News, the WH is also wrong to overgeneralize by assuming that Fox viewers are the only ones who matter. Things are certainly polarized, but there are Fox viewers who aren’t part of the hardcore Republican base and there are non-Fox viewers who aren’t part of the netroots. Granting an exclusive to Fox implies that the WH doesn’t believe that, and I join Joe and others in thinking that they are mistaken in that thinking.
Since I’ve been one to complain about lack of moderation here lately, I have to join Marlowe in praising Joe for the extreme moderate tone in this article.
[...] And consider that another way must be found, if we are to survive as a Constitutional Republic. The Monsters are due on Pennsylvania Avenue. [...]
By failing to find a more neutral venue, we are given the appearance of them tyring to rig the game, whether that’s true or not.
LMAO. Yeah, sure, “a more neutral venue,” such as, say, MSNBC? Or CNN? Or CBS, maybe? Pull the other one.
Blue Crab is dead on when they say:
Fox News has the highest ratings of the cable news nets, routinely clocking twice or more the prime-time viewers of runner-up CNN. The broadcast networks certainly aren’t going to poke an hour’s hole in their prime-time schedule, especially if it might help the White House in any way. Not the week before season premiers, they won’t–they’d alienate some segment of their viewership no matter how they handle it. Of the remaining venues that might open an hour of prime-time for Petraeus, Fox is the logical choice on ratings alone.
The Bush Administration has retained and capitalized on power by playing to a solid base within the Republican Party, and has received unqualified support from Fox. If Petraeus is truly an independent voice, he should appear on multiple media outlets to try to win support for continuing the policy. The fact that he chose Fox and interviewed previously with Hewitt tells us that either he can’t take the heat, or the decisions are being made by administration officials who are playing the old strategy of rallying the base and ignoring the rest of the country.
Maybe they can generate enough support to keep the surge going for a while. But it comes at the expense of attempting to unite the country over the issue, and worse, comes across as a purely partisan move. It will cause many who are still undecided to determine, fairly or unfairly, that Petraeus is politically motivated and that will in turn taint his report.
[...] Gen. Petraeus Makes a Big Public Relations Mistake [...]
One of the primary reasons for a lot of people turning against Patreaus is the nature of his September report has fundementally changed. Remember, he promised in his Congressional earlier this year to not only be objective but to prove it with “metrics”.
Now, not only will there not be metrics but there won’t even be a written report. It will be a repeat of Gonzales type testimony where words are spun and it will be impossible to pin down any objective facts.
Bush is once again resorting to an “in your face” approach. His mind is made up and since he is the “decider” the only person he has to pay attention to is himself. The Fox News angle is just symptomatic of his arrogance. I’m surprised Patreaus is going along with all of this – without metrics and without a written report – it’s his credibility that will be damaged for all time.
Yes, TULLY,
MSNBC, CNN, CBS or any other news channel would have been a better choice, if we still believe there is a purpose to having a free press.
Preserving the freedom of the press was meant to safeguard the public against invalid assertions by the governemtn and to protect the right to dissent.
We ended up with the international mess that is the Iraq war precisely because the press voluntarily chose not to exercise that right. By that failure, it helped to create a nation of lemmings.
At this stage, it is vitally important that we don’t repeat the lemming swan dive over the cliff again, and again and again.
We;ll have to wait and see how the actual interview goes, but FOX is the most likely venue where the government won’t be challenged and the primary purpose of having freedom of the press in the first place won’t be exercised.
The exercise of all freedoms becomes messy, with conflicitng views and slants. The press is no different, but at least, at its basis, it should report on the government with a healthy dose of scepticism. By choosing a venue whete that is least lekely to happen, the administration is choosing a venue where it is most likely to encounter a happy lemming comunity.
I don;t favor a quick withdrawal, or a complete withdrawal, BTW. I favor not being sold on a policy without it being laid open to challenge.
It is very curious that conxervatives, who claim such distrust of the government, are also the defenders of having the governemtn’s policies presented without challenges or questioning.
On top of everything, what is a military general doing selling a political policy in the first place?
For too many, nothing seems to matter except the preservation of the echo chamber in their minds.
Wow, that was completely sense-free, doma. I was not aware that Fox News Channel was a branch of the federal government, or that Brit Hume interviewing Petraeus was an invidious assault on freedom of speech and press!
Yeah, he should only appear on Fox after he appears before Congress and gets grilled by Tom Lantos and company, as talking to ANY of the other networks would be going off-message, and the Democrats in Congress sure aren’t going to posture or make speeches or attempt to misrepresent histestimony. And ABC would hardball him…oh wait, he already gave ABC’s Charles Gibson an interview, didn’t he? What a lovefest that was. That whore Gibson–didn’t he know he was supposed to beat Patraeus up, and soften him up for Lantos?
Tully -
Your response makes my point: protect Petraeus from those nasty Democrats in Congress and
from challenging questioning.
Democracy is messy, a free press is messy. If it isn’t, then it’s absent
Talking about sense-free, I’m struck by how offended you are by posturing and distortions in Congress and other news outlets, but the question of whether the administration might not be doing the same is not even considered.
I am the administration, and I’m here to help you…
The whole thing revolves back to the question of trust. All the pre-tesstimony acrimony is caused by the fact that this administration has lost the trust of the public, except for the lemmings, who will follow it any direction, inlucding way down a cliff side
It would be in the administration’s, and the nation’s interest, to try to rebuild that trust by, at least, appearing to be open about its methods and means and reasoning. That means accepting the legitimacy of being challenged, instead of trying to avoid it.
Instead, the opposition is demonized, pushing it further into mistrust.
If the asministration, and its fans, were purposfully trying to energize the oppositon, it couldn’t do a better job.
.
.
Go easy on drinking the koolaid before the facts come out……….there is both a written report and 15 pages of metrics.