B²: “No comment.”

/1,774 Comments/in , , /by

Blame it on the holiday weekend, or DMG’s goal to rid every client of all the bad habits, but this week’s B² (block and bridge) is less issue-specific and more best practice.

Few things in life are guaranteed like responding “no comment” in a media interview and writing your on-the-record statement.

Why?

Because so many have used it and abused it. “No comment” doesn’t mean “no comment,” or at least no one thinks it does. Instead, the phrase is an undeniable WARNING that you are guilty or clueless. Either you did it, you know who did it, you legally can’t share information that confirms that accusation, or you have no idea what the reporter is talking about.

Happens to the best of us. So what’s the right way to answer a question you absolutely don’t want to answer and not make headlines?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “<Insert probing/accusatory question you don’t want to answer>.”

B²: “Here’s how I’d put it – <rephrase the question> <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, know that you have options. It’s ok to refuse the interview if you fear the reporter asking you questions you don’t want to/can’t answer. You can also rephrase the question. Your goal should always be to control the interview, and that goal doesn’t change if you’re asked a “gotcha” question. Be mindful of the reporter or host and his/her angle, then decide if the interview is beneficial to your organization, cause, or candidate. If not, politely refuse. If so, proceed with a B² in your back pocket.

But whatever you do, don’t say “no comment.”

B²: Uber and Lyft

/2,438 Comments/in , , /by

On May 7th, the citizens of Austin, TX said “Nah to the ah to the no, no, no” (a la Meghan Trainor) to the rideshare economy. Due to safety concerns, Uber and Lyft were asked to operate under increasing regulations (like fingerprinting) in addition to the already-mandated background checks. Both companies challenged the ordinance, lost, and have taken their business elsewhere.

The blame can partly rest on the “DO ALL THINGS IN THE NAME OF SAFETY” refrain that more and more cities are adopting. Burdensome regulation is imposed (‘cause safety) and goods and services that benefit the consumer are nixed.

The “DO ALL THINGS IN THE NAME OF SAFETY” refrain isn’t new, is probably here to stay, and can be applied to numerous goods and services that make your life easier (think also: Airbnb). Uber and Lyft are only its latest victims. So, how do you argue for the continued existence of a valuable good or service in light of safety concerns?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “Isn’t this about safety? Aren’t these regulations, like fingerprinting, needed?”

B²: “Not at all. Background checks are required, and the customer rating also alerts drivers and riders to problems, should there be any. But one major advantage of ridesharing is….<insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, acknowledge the safety concern first. You have to pacify fear before launching into any benefit of the good or service – your message will be lost on an anxious audience if you don’t. Then, pivot to the overriding benefits this good or service provides. Yes, legitimate safety concerns should be addressed. But if checks already exist to prevent tragedy, it’s reasonable to question any additional regulation that won’t prove helpful.

Friends don’t let friends lose out on really good things in the name of regulation.

B²: Bathroom Bills and Bullies

/115 Comments/in , , /by

On Friday, the Federal Government said more than just “employees must wash their hands.”

In case you missed it, a letter was signed, sealed, and delivered by the Obama Administration to every public school district threatening lawsuits and/or loss of funding if transgender students aren’t allowed to use the bathroom of their chosen gender identity.

Even if you never expect to answer questions about bathroom bills, the federal government’s mantra of “comply or lose funding” is a dangerous precedent. Some may even call it blackmail.

From immigration to EPA regulations to bathroom bills, do you know how to talk about abuse of executive power?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “What do you think about the bathroom bills?”

B²: “This is a complicated issue, and there is a lot to discuss in order to arrive at the best solution. But the Obama administration prefers to cut that conversation short (as he’s done with other issues), which is why… <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, focus on the federal overreach and bullying tactics of the Obama Administration first. Doing so will enable you to have the right conversation – states know better than bureaucrats how to address the concerns of their citizens.

B²: “Count me in”/#NeverTrump

/149 Comments/in , , /by

Since Donald Trump has become the presumptive nominee, the GOP seems stuck in a glass case of emotion.

You’ve got your “count me ins” like Governors Mike Pence and Rick Perry, your “I’m not readys” like House Speaker Paul Ryan, and your #NeverTrumps like Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Congressman Justin Amash (MI-03). All of the indecision and uncertainty makes for great television, and the media knows it.

So, unless you’re ready to commit to the Donald or change your voter registration, what is the best way to dance around the disunity?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, will you support him in the general?”

B²: “In order to make a decision, I need him to throw fewer insults and talk more policy. One issue I’m most concerned about is <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, know that you can dance around the disunity and talk policy until you’re ready to address Trump as the presumptive nominee (which may be never, and that’s ok). As DMG teaches, re-focusing the conversation on your message and subsequent talking points is always the best move no matter the topic. Trump and the supposed schism are getting more than enough media attention, so fill the void and stick to the issues.

B²: “Lucifer in the flesh.”

/111 Comments/in , , /by

When asked about Senator Ted Cruz last week, former speaker John Boehner made his feelings known. In case anyone thought otherwise, there is now no confusion over how Boehner feels towards Cruz and consequently who he’ll vote for in November.

Got it. Thanks.

But what did Boehner gain by taking off the kid gloves? And is his tactic worth repeating? It depends on what he was trying to accomplish. Two things are for sure:

  1. The media appreciated Boehner’s candor as the headlines wrote themselves for a few days.
  2. His abrasive language probably won him some cool kid points. As the current state of politics has demonstrated, there is a sizable voter base that craves this kind of truthfulness (*cough cough* Donald Trump).

All in all, not a terrible fallout…if your goal isn’t elected office or a policy change. But what if it is? Does DMG recommend you follow Boehner’s lead when a reporter asks you to comment on someone you don’t like?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “What do you think about <insert name>?”

B²: “He/she and I definitely have some differences, which is why I propose <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, don’t assess motive. It’s permissible to criticize policy, but don’t make it personal. Doing so never ends well – the news cycle grabs hold of your negative statement and plays it on repeat for days thereby turning the conversation from substantive to superficial. The result? The audience knows you’ll never pick so-and-so to play on your team, but the message you carefully crafted and wanted to communicate was never heard – major bummer.

B²: 1,237

/1,729 Comments/in , , /by

If someone says: “1,237,” your immediate reply is: “the magical number of delegates a GOP candidate needs before he can be crowned the nominee.” That’s because the news cycle is obsessed with convention talk even though the main event is more than 2 months away.

It seems like the most important conversation is centered on the convention and rules and number of delegates, etc. rather than issues and how each candidate plans to govern. SAD!

But if the chatter is lively now, you can bet it will continue unabated through the end of July. Which means, if you work in (or close to) politics, you’ll likely field a question (or three) about the convention and the significance of 1,237. Do you know how to respond?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “If Donald Trump doesn’t have 1,237 delegates before the GOP convention in July, do you think he should be handed the nomination anyway?”

B²: “The convention is more than 2 months away. A lot can happen between now and then, and I’m going to leave that discussion to the RNC. Regardless, an issue to focus our attention on now is <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, steer clear of making predictions or recommendations because A) that’s not your job (unless it is…in which case, feel free to proceed) and B) talking about the convention ad nauseam for the next 60+ days doesn’t do much for your message. Always redirect the conversation back to the reason for the interview. You’re in control and it’s your message the audience wants to hear. No need to throw your hat into an already too-full ring.

NOTE: This strategy can also be applied to the Democratic convention. Just replace “1,237” with “super delegates” and “RNC” with “DNC,” and you’re all set.

B²: Going Green

/1,511 Comments/in , , /by

Big things are happening on Friday – 1) it’s Earth Day and 2) the Paris Agreement is scheduled to be signed in New York. Climate change advocates everywhere rejoice!

Especially President Obama. Remember that one time he said, “No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” That’s right. Not ISIS or terrorism or literally anything else. Obama wants desperately to impose regulations he thinks will make a difference before he leaves office in January.

However, (cue the sad trombone) numerous studies have proven the opposite – instead of stopping or reversing climate change, the regulations will be of little help AND place a heavy cost on families. No bueno.

In anticipation of Friday’s events and Obama’s determination to maintain a legacy of climate change reversal, beware of reporters who will want to throw accusatory questions at you. Questions that assume you deny climate change and hate the environment. Do you know how to stand your ground?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “It has been reported that energy regulations are necessary to stop climate change, but you favor not imposing regulations. Why don’t you want to save our planet?”

B²: “I care about the environment, which is why I don’t agree with the regulations the President and others want to impose. Research proves that the Paris Agreement will have little impact on global temperatures but significant impact on people’s energy costs. For example, <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, make sure you talk about caring for the environment first. Sure, cost matters and it’s important to talk about how American jobs will be harmed and energy costs will likely increase by 20%, but combat the typical rhetoric and embrace your concern for the health of the planet. Because you do care! And it’s ok to talk about it! Not only will you disarm a hostile reporter/host, but you’ll establish common ground with those who favor regulation. All of a sudden, your position doesn’t seem so extreme.

B²: Religious Liberty

/2,181 Comments/in , , /by

Religious liberty is having a moment.

Amidst the chaotic election chatter, this fundamental American right is rising above and demanding its voice be heard.

States like Mississippi and North Carolina have voted to defend religious liberty; Georgia’s governor vetoed a bill that would’ve offered similar protections to its citizens; and the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments on the Little Sisters of the Poor case.

And now all must deal with the consequences – PayPal halted construction of its global operations center in NC, Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams have canceled concerts, the NBA has threatened to pull the 2017 All-Star Game out of Charlotte, and the list goes on.

The fallout will continue and voices on both sides of the issue will only get louder and prouder. If your aim is to defend religious liberty, how do you field questions from the media about the various bills and court cases without giving into a shouting match and/or being labeled anti-LGBT, anti-woman, or intolerant? It’s a tightrope to walk.

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “Aren’t you discriminating against the LGBT community?”

B²: “Not at all. This is about the government discriminating against people of faith. If we believe in a “live and let live” society, we must <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, refocus the narrative on the true point of conflict – government coercion. Even if you personally disagree with someone’s religious beliefs or practices, there is common ground in the idea that America should be a “live and let live” society. If you can establish a point of agreement and then bridge to a talking point that spotlights the people you defend, you’ve got a winning message.

B²: “Some form of punishment”

/174 Comments/in , , /by

It’s not brand new information that Donald Trump rarely offers a detailed policy proposal – his audience doesn’t demand it. And so, he often makes statements that seem brash or exaggerated or unfair without consequence.

But in a town hall last week, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews didn’t let Trump off easy. The result? Trump closed out the worst week of his campaign by stating that women who undergo abortions should receive “some form of punishment.” Thanks to the 24-hour news cycle that just won’t quit, we’ve all heard Trump’s answer and his almost-immediate reversal over and over and over again.

Whether his misstep on abortion will influence voters in Wisconsin today or New York in 2 weeks remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure, the pro-life movement will be made to answer for Trump’s answer as long as he’s a candidate. What will you say?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “Donald Trump (a self-proclaimed pro-lifer) thinks that woman should be punished if abortion is made illegal. As someone who also claims to be pro-life, do you agree?”

B²: “Donald Trump doesn’t represent the pro-life movement and is wrong. He’s proven time and again that he doesn’t want to have a serious discussion about major policy issues. What we need to do is <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, don’t give any airtime to Trump’s answer. Instead, remind the media that he often makes outlandish and incorrect statements. His most recent eyebrow raising sound bite is no different. Then, pivot to your talking points to focus on the unborn as well as the mother, who often feels like she has no hope. To secure a win-win, craft a narrative that considers both lives.

B²: Terror Attacks

/1,812 Comments/in , , /by

The tragic events of the last 7 days are too familiar. We’ve now witnessed 4 separate attacks in 4 months. From Paris to San Bernardino to Brussels to Pakistan, the world continues to unite with and mourn for those affected, as well as talk about how to prevent similar attacks in the future.

But with Obama’s tone deaf response…

…and a presidential candidate’s knee-jerk declaration to build a wall, ban Muslims, and waterboard, reporters can easily steer you away from a constructive policy conversation to defeat ISIS.

If you plan to focus on policy rather than the politician, do you know how to remain above the fray and offer a way forward?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “We’ve witnessed 4 terrorist attacks in 4 months. Do you agree with Donald Trump on how we deal with this?”

B²: “I don’t and here’s why – while it is true that we need to remain vigilant at home, the best way to prevent future attacks here is to have a clear strategy to combat ISIS over there. We need to <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, shift the focus from politician to policy. True, it is fair game to call out responses that are less than helpful (cc: Obama and Trump), but the middle ground remains wide open. Occupy it. No matter your foreign policy, now is the time to have a serious discussion about how to keep the American people safe and prevent future attacks on our soil.