Posts Tagged ‘reputation’

1. Tiger Tiger burning bright…and crashing*

   Published on Friday, December 11th, 2009

   While the media still can’t get quite enough of the story, some quarters have gone quiet on Tiger Woods. 

   After his ho-hum apology, Tiger is giving the world the silent treatment in a strategy to deal with the ruckus over the snowballing allegations of multiple infidelities. Keeping Mum is not a bad idea, in truth, particularly while the appetite for scandal is still sky high, and anything he says will have news editor eager to keep him selling papers. 

   Bizarre indeed was the sight of the feckless cocktail waitress, one of his alleged partners in this concupiscence, publicly apologising to Tiger’s wife on global TV for her part in the dalliance.  Just what Mrs Woods wanted, I’m sure.

   But there is another quarter that appears to have quietly turned its back on the sport star – and these are his sponsors.

    According to a report in the LA Times data compiled by the Nielsen ratings company, no Woods ads have appeared on television since Nov. 29, two days after he crashed his Cadillac SUV outside his home in Florida.

   This has got to hurt. Forbes have his sponsorships worth $110 million.
   
   Across a range of big swinging brands like Nike, Gillette, PepsiCo Inc.’s, Gatorade and Tag Heur, the sponsors’ response plan appears to be to keep aspirational images of Tiger out of the public’s face until this blows over.  Given their substantial investments in this “property,” brand managers are holding their breath and hoping like mad that the worst is over for the golden boy of golf. Meanwhile golf viewers are switching off in droves – TV ratings for golf down 50% – affecting advertising revenues.

   Which reminds me, golf is what Tiger does exceptionally well.  Before he became the pin-up boy for multicultural morality and family values, perhaps we could all return to the real game, please?

   * apologies to poet William Blake

   

2. Poorly served by media accuracy

   Published on Thursday, March 12th, 2009

   We have no right to expect accuracy from the media.  And the media has no right to promise that they will give us accurate reports.

   I came to this Damascene realisation only recently, or more correctly, I only recently faced up to this realisation. This is tough when you’ve spent a career working with the media and for a time even being part of it.

   What brought this on? Well, in fact it was media’s treatment of the teacher stabbed at Avondale College, a person known to me through a shared recreational pursuit over a couple of years*.

   The stabbing occurred late morning on Tuesday, March 3. By the next morning it’s hard to believe that anyone following the story did not think that the incident was in large part due to racism. Indeed, most people would have tended to believe this teacher was prone to racist comments.

   This is because in their pursuit of this story the media recorded the comments of anyone prepared to say anything, and if they did not have the comments first hand, to leverage the report of other media.  Those making such statements were guaranteed anonymity.

   Under these circumstances it was impossible to present an accurate report, so in the circumstances why impugn someone’s reputation?   For the sake of a story I guess, regardless of accuracy and integrity.

   In its own defense, the media insists that it searches out balance, by getting comment from or on behalf of the victim. When they can’t, it is a matter of editorial judgment – or lack of it – to go, or not, with what they’ve got.

   In such cases, the media tends to justify its position by stating the obvious: These are the statements of those we interviewed; we do not vouch for their accuracy.

   Following the earlier media reports, we learned through the court process that the stabbing was premeditated and, through a report of what police told the school community, “racism was not a motive”.

   Inevitably this does not resonate as deeply and widely across the media as the earlier, lasting accusations.

   Not trusting the accuracy of media is one thing, but not trusting the statements made by a government department is quite another. In Tuesday’s Dominion Post I read the disturbing report of how the strategic communications manager for Internal Affairs, according to his boss, seemed to be “talking at cross purposes with the media” over the timing of the return of Winston Peters’ ministerial vehicle.

   ‘Talking at cross purposes’ is a euphemism for avoiding factual, accurate responses.
   The comment of the Dominion Post’s chief reporter on this sad incident was (in part) that the public should be able to expect civil servants… to give straight answers.

   I agree whole heartedly. I hope he will agree with me that consumers of the news media have a right to fairness, balance and good editorial judgment.

   * I visited my paddling buddy in recent days, but we did not discuss any details of the incident, aside from the bodily impact and affect of the stabbing, or the likely causes.