Monday Morning Media Minute

Bill and Hillary Clinton appear to have made a major miscalculation last week. They oversold their “feud” with Barack Obama. And they did it in a way that didn’t play well with their audience.

That’s my take on the lopsided results for Saturday’s vote in South Carolina. Will it hurt Hillary’s campaign beyond South Carolina? I have no idea.

Here’s the bottom line for you and me. We all want to sell our stories. But “overselling” them is a mistake that can actually do you harm.

Push too hard on a story that doesn’t interest reporters and they’ll see you as a nuisance. Push too hard on a story that doesn’t interest reporters and that they don’t believe is true and they’ll see you as dishonest. And that means you’ll lose their trust.

The Clintons oversold a story that made them look dishonest. Don’t replicate their mistake.

That’s my two cents’ worth. What’s yours? — Jerry Brown

Bill Clinton and Mitt Romney found themselves in confrontations with reporters last week. I’ve been there a few times myself. Maybe you have, too. It’s generally a bad idea. But not always.

Romney got into it with an AP reporter in South Carolina who challenged his claim that “I don’t have lobbyists running my campaign.” Clinton went after a TV reporter who suggested his wife’s campaign was behind a lawsuit by the Nevada teachers’ union concerning participation in the state’s political caucuses.

When he’s on, nobody’s better at telling his story than Clinton. But he’s been tangling with reporters a lot recently – enough so that some other prominent Democrats and people connected with his wife’s campaign are urging him to chill out a bit. That’s good advice.

One of the most common mistakes people make with reporters is developing a fortress mentality because they assume reporters are out to get them. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You don’t have to like the reporters who are covering you. But you do have to work with them. That doesn’t mean you should ignore mistakes or biases by reporters. But picking fights whenever they ask a question you don’t like – as Clinton did in this case – is asking for bad coverage.

Romney made a different mistake. The reporter who challenged his no-lobbyists-running-my-campaign claim injected his own point of view into their exchange. But Romney would have been better off moving on instead of engaging in a debate. The exchange was captured on video and played on TV. And it was pretty clear by the time it was done that Romney was making a distinction that won’t matter in the minds of many. The fact is he has several lobbyists serving as high-level advisers, although they’re not “running” the campaign.

Here’s the bottom line: You’re entitled to express your point of view, whether reporters agree with it or not. You’re also entitled to point out mistakes to reporters. And you’re entitled to defend yourself against unfair accusations.

But, with some exceptions, you’re almost always better off staying factual and avoiding emotional, heated exchanges. You won’t win those. And, when all is said and done, the reporter’s the one who writes the story.

That’s my two cents’ worth. What’s yours?

Like what you read here? Then visit my eStore. It’s open for business. Buy early and often.

There’s an old rule in journalism:  Don’t get ahead of the story.

Reporters and pundits covering the New Hampshire primary last week forgot that rule in spades with stories before and during Tuesday’s voting giving Barack Obama a double-digit victory and suggesting Hillary Clinton’s campaign was in trouble – or done.

One problem for the pundits:  The voters didn’t do what they were “supposed” to.

Blame it on the pollsters, if you want.  Many of the pundits who got ahead of the story will do just that.  And the pollsters clearly got it wrong.

But poll results notwithstanding, the journalists got it wrong, too.  They got ahead of the story by assuming the polls were the final word on what would happen.  They weren’t.

You can’t keep reporters from getting ahead of the story when they’re covering you.  But you can avoid getting ahead of the story yourself.  No matter how sure you are of what’s going to happen, making predictions is risky business.  If you get it wrong on a story that’s generating news, reporters will remind you and everyone else of your mistake.

And when reporters get ahead of the story?  They’ll look for someone else to blame.  If they got ahead of the story by following your lead, guess who that’ll be.

That’s my two cents’ worth.  What’s yours?

An update to last week’s MMMM, thanks to several readers. Here’s what I said:

Huckabee’s answer was characterized by several pundits as evidence he doesn’t know enough about foreign affairs to be president – although I didn’t see anyone challenging the accuracy of his comment about the number Pakistani’s sneaking into our country. I have no idea if he’s right.

Well, it turns out Huckabee got it wrong, very wrong — as Steve Lang points out in the comment he posted on the MMMM Blog and as several others pointed out in e-mails to me. Thank you all.

Here’s a link showing the real figures, provided by Jonathan Bernstein of Bernstein Crisis Management.

Here’s the bottom line: Assuming he doesn’t know enough about what’s happening in Pakistan to comment intelligently on the situation there, Huckabee did the right thing by changing the subject. But he blew it by making up an answer that wasn’t even close to being true. And I should have done a little more research so I could have called him on the inaccuracy the first time around.

– Jerry

I’m back. I hope your Christmas or whatever you celebrate was as good as mine. And let me be among the last this season to wish you a happy new year.

A couple thoughts about the presidential campaigns. No, not a prediction. That’s way above my pay grade. Instead I want to focus on a couple comments by my fellow Arkansas natives Chelsea Clinton and Mike Huckabee.

Chelsea took some heat over the holidays for refusing to answer a question from a “kid reporter” in Iowa. She was quoted as telling nine-year-old Sydney Rieckhoff: “I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately, even though I think you’re cute.”

AP carried the story, with a lead kicking Chelsea in the shins: “It’s one thing for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign to turn down interview requests for the candidate’s daughter, Chelsea. But can’t a 9-year-old reporter catch a break?” CNN took a similar tack.

Like the other candidates, Huckabee found himself being asked about the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Unlike the other candidates, he responded by talking about illegal immigration in the United States.

“The fact is the immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds,” Huckabee told reporters. “It’s about people that can come with a shoulder-fired missile and can do serious damage and harm to us.” He went on to claim “more Pakistani illegals (are) coming across our border than all other nationalities, except those immediately south of the border, and in light of what’s happening in Pakistan, it ought to give us pause.”

Huckabee’s answer was characterized by several pundits as evidence he doesn’t know enough about foreign affairs to be president — although I didn’t see anyone challenging the accuracy of his comment about the number Pakistani’s sneaking into our country. I have no idea if he’s right.

The answers by Clinton and Huckabee weren’t perfect. But I think both of them did more or less the right thing.

Chelsea’s clearly been told not to talk to reporters. I know a lot of executives and others who would do well to demonstrate the kind of discipline she did. I’m not advocating people avoid reporters. Far from it. But you don’t have to respond just because a reporter asks you a question.

As for Huckabee, let’s say the pundits were right, which may or may not be true. Not responding to the question about Bhutto’s assassination wasn’t a realistic option for him. If he really doesn’t know enough about Pakistan to comment on what’s happening there then wading into that thicket by winging it would be dangerous indeed. So, he changed the subject to talk about somethinghe knows about. Good for him.

That’s my two cents’ worth. What’s yours?

-0-

If you’ve gotten this far, you’ve already figured out the Monday Morning Media Minute is now a blog. I hope you’ll offer up a comment or two from time to time. I’ve also added a second blog, Jerry’s Two Cents’ Worth, also available through my website. How will it differ from MMMM? I don’t know yet. We’ll find out together.