McClellan's misstep: a cautionary tale

Risk Management, Sept, 2005 by Tony Silberfeld

When President Eisenhower agreed to let television cameras into the White House during a press conference in 1955, he fundamentally changed the way politicians would interact with the public for decades to come. Over the past 50 years, U.S. Presidents have subsequently learned to master the press to advance their agendas, especially on television. Even the most effective message machine can go astray, however, and when it does, you can be sure the media will be there to pounce.

The Bush Administration, for example, has one of the most calculating and efficient communications teams in the history of the White House. Their process is straightforward--identify the issue, develop a simple message that appeals to the masses and repeat that message until it is firmly ingrained in the American psyche. From electoral victories in 2000 and 2004 to selling the war in Iraq, this administration had seemingly done the impossible: it found a formula to insulate itself from media risk.

Not even the most seasoned communications operation is invulnerable to media risk, however. In 2003, an anonymous White House source allegedly revealed the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. The fallout from this scandal was laced with political retribution and international intrigue. In response, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan declared that if it was discovered that anyone from the White House was involved, the person responsible would be fired immediately. McClellan would have been well served to commit that moment to memory, as it would come back to haunt him.

In July 2005, the issue resurfaced in the context of the ongoing investigation into who unlawfully outed Plame. Caught in the middle of this investigation were journalists Matt Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of the New York Times, both of whom had been researching the reported leak. Although Cooper and Miller were not responsible for revealing Plame's identity, they were held in contempt of court for not identifying their source that did. While Miller went to jail rather than reveal her source, Cooper cooperated with investigators. As it turned out, the source was none other than White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove.

When the story broke, the White House press corps was ready. McClellan was not. During the first press conference following this revelation, the White House Press Secretary was peppered with questions that he was simply not prepared to answer. Without a satisfactory response on hand, the White House opted to stonewall by refusing to comment on ongoing investigations. But the press corps quickly pointed out that McClellan commented on this issue on September 29, 2003 while the investigation was already ongoing. The questioning escalated from that point into a televised free-for-all that left McClellan's credibility in tatters. But more importantly, in one fell swoop the White House lost control over its message, sacrificing its ability to control the story.

The White House failed on several levels. First, it faced the press without fully preparing for what it might encounter. Second, the message prompted more questions rather than satisfying the existing ones. Third, by the end of this briefing, the White House had a more serious crisis on its hands than it did going in. Could this situation have been prevented? Maybe not. But the bungling reaction to aggressive prodding by the media exacerbated an already difficult predicament.

In business, we find companies, such as Enron and WorldCom, that have excelled in taking the wrong approach toward their relationship with the media. In each case, the media was more effective in driving the direction of the story than the companies were. Although it is impossible to erase the criminal actions done in these cases, it is possible to minimize the long-term effects on one's company by taking a strategic and rational approach to media relations.

Perhaps the most important lesson to learn from the McClellan debacle is that years of diligent risk management, under the wrong conditions, can be undone in a single moment of unpreparedness. While this can be said for all kinds of risk, it is something to be especially mindful of once the cameras start rolling.

Tony Silberfeld is the RIMS government affairs manager.