B²: SCOTUS and Abortion

As the Running of the Interns confirmed yesterday, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas abortion law that required (among other things) abortion clinics to meet the same health standards as surgical centers.

Some immediately rejoiced…

…while others acknowledged the defeat for what it is – the Supreme Court not only ignored due process, but made it clear that courts—not state legislatures—have the power to determine abortion laws.

So, the fight continues. Especially as November nears and Hillary leads the charge for the Democrats. Women’s health will remain a key talking point on both platforms. Get ready to rumble.

Do you know how to articulate your message in the midst of the firestorm?

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: “Why do you want to shut down abortion facilities that provide and protect women’s health?”

B²: “This decision took away the ability to protect women’s health. When Planned Parenthood clinics routinely fail to meet the same safety and health requirements as hospitals, the opposite happens: women’s health is put at risk. Women deserve (insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, maintain that protecting women’s health is your #1 concern…and the Supreme Court just made that goal a lot more difficult to achieve. Cite Kermit Gosnell and the disgusting state of his clinic as example numero uno of what you hope to prevent. Though some (and the mainstream media) will want to make it seem like you’re just out to end abortion (and maybe you are), control the narrative. Talk about women’s health on your terms.

B²: Gun Control

The frequency of mass shootings and terrorist attacks are increasing. Orlando is the latest, and many pray the last.

But the Obama Administration’s obvious (and very bad) case of denial is making it difficult to have the right conversation in the media about how to avoid future tragedies. Obama himself would rather cling to gun control as the best preventative measure when very real ties to Islamic terrorism are the common denominator between the San Bernardino and Orlando shooters.

With the media and administration driving the “guns are bad!” narrative, how can you change the conversation and elevate Islamic terrorism as the number one talking point?

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 question about gun control>.”

B²: “Gun control laws strip citizens of their only defense in these horrific situations because criminals, and in this case an Islamic terrorist, are going to kill innocent people regardless of what the law says. This is exactly why we need to <insert talking point on defeating Islamic terrorism>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, acknowledge the senseless tragedy that happened in Orlando and then connect prevention to combating Islamic terrorism, not stricter gun laws; people want solutions, not platitudes. The “guns are bad!” narrative has been propped up for decades and yet the frequency of mass shootings and terrorist attacks have increased. It’s time to have a different conversation.

NOTE: If you are an expert on gun laws, please debate the issue rather than pivot to Islamic terrorism. There is room for this discussion, and those who are prepared to have it should have it.

B²: Bad Behavior

As Paul Ryan learned last week, words matter. Especially if you want to prevent a media firestorm.

In response to Trump’s comments about a judge’s inability to rule fairly in the Trump University case given his Mexican-American heritage, Ryan said:

“Claiming a person can’t do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable.”

Cue the madness.

In addition to asking whether you think Trump’s comments are “racist,” reporters can NOW add “do you agree with Paul Ryan’s labeling of Trump’s comments as ‘racist’?” Two tough questions to navigate and answer well.

Ryan is in a tough spot, and the rightness of his response only depends on what he’s trying to accomplish. Unfortunately, if his goal was to bury the issue, Ryan did the opposite by using the word “racist.”

Because crisis management is real life, and you’ll likely have to tread lightly at some point, what do you say if you’re asked to comment on bad behavior and hope to bury the issue in the process?

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: “Do you think Trump’s comments were racist?”

B²: “Many, including myself, find Trump’s rhetoric appalling/deplorable. But ultimately it’s the voters who will have the final word on what he says as well as what he plans to do on issues like <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, DO NOT insert words or phrases that allow the media to define the narrative. Remain truthful, but benign in order to bury the issue. And then pivot to your talking points to redirect the conversation. The question the reporter asked Ryan didn’t include the word “racist.” It was his decision to use it in his answer. A decision that many of his colleagues on Capitol Hill most likely won’t appreciate.

B²: From Gorillas to Policy

Harambe the gorilla is 2016’s version of Cecil the lion.

Last week, the media obsessed over the gorilla and his interaction with a toddler, then his death sparked an international outcry, and now #JusticeForHarambe exists in the Twittersphere.

A moment of silence, please.

But what if you, like most people, don’t talk about gorilla shootings and/or zoo-related issues? Does this mean you’re out of luck if the news cycle plays animal rights on repeat? Not at all. If you know how to block and bridge, and are willing to play off the story (no matter how unrelated to your topic), you can do interviews. So, how does it work?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that points the narrative in the direction of your talking point:

Q: “Doesn’t the outcry prove that the zoo should’ve tranquilized Harambe instead of killing him?”

B²: “While the situation is tragic all around, it’s very concerning that we’re placing more focus on this issue rather than <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, whether it’s about the increasingly disastrous refugee crisis or the killings in Chicago, remember what Winston Churchill said: “never let a good crisis go to waste.” The jury’s still out on whether the deaths of Harambe and Cecil (RIP) count as crises, but the strategy applies. Just because you may not be well versed in the latest animal rights talking points doesn’t mean you can’t capitalize on the news cycle and pivot to your issue. As DMG consistently recommends, acknowledge the incident and the emotion, but then change the conversation via a solid block and bridge.

B²: Uber and Lyft

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

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

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.”

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

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

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.