Media Strategy

The Eagles gave Michael Vick a chance at a fresh start in the NFL after he was released from prison over a year ago. They did so to a chorus of boos and judgement by many in the media and the public. Still, Vick was given a chance to play behind McNabb and filled in for McNabb a few times with varying degrees of success.

As a long time Eagles fan I was angry, sad, and shocked when Donovan McNabb was traded to the Redskins and original backup QB Kevin Kolb was given a contract extension, a franchise tag and, obviously the starting QB role. What the Eagles were calling the Kolb Era, I referred to as the Kolb Error. It wasn’t that I wanted Vick to start, I wanted Reid to go and McNabb to stay.

My amateur sports analysis is that the Eagles may not have signed Kevin Kolb to a 12 million + extension if they thought there was a chance in hell it was safe to make Michael Vick a starter–for skill reasons but mostly for public relations reasons. The tone of public opinion on Vick has been mostly negative, in particular among people who aren’t big fans of football, a demographic the NFL is trying hard not to alienate for the sake of advertisers. I have to believe that this fear of public opinion is why a team like the Raiders would sign former Redskins QB Jason Campbell (whom they have now benched) and not Michael Vick.

What a difference 18 months makes. Who would have known that it would only take a game and half of mediocre (not ‘horrible’) play on Kolb’s part to turn fans and sports enthusiasts  into a mob that all but ridiculed the Eagles decision to make Kolb number 1. And more than that, who would have thought the Eagles would be facing a PR nightmare for NOT starting him?

Public opinion is a fickle beast, and this is a situation that could have easily gone in the other direction. Fortunately for Vick, his biggest detractors have moved on and aren’t really keeping up with his latest activities. Vick participated in a reality show last year that humanized him in the eyes of sports fans, and often that’s all it takes to be forgiven.

I’m sure PETA will release a statement expressing sadness that Vick is being in any way allowed to move on with his life given his past actions, but it will have zero effect on Vick’s reputation going forward or how the fans receive him in the stadium. There will also be grumblings if Vick shows flashes of his old self when he consistently struggled to find receivers. Still, Vick wins in this case and the Eagles lose by continuing their streak of mistreating their most loyal players. [Okay that's not media analysis that's my biased amateur sports reporter opinion].

We all defend people we like. If we think we identify with someone, we’ll always find a way to defend their actions. If you’ve ever seen me in a debate about Harold Ford Jr., you’ll know that’s true. I’m a big fan of Ford and am notoriously skillful at finding some right in all of his wrongs.

This is the first time I’ve written anything about Sarah Palin since 2009 when a writer over at The Grio tried to illustrate Palin’s so-called commonalities with black women. Needless to say, I took issue with that on my personal blog. But mostly, since Palin and McCain were roundly beaten in the Presidential election, I’ve ignored Palin’s existence because she’s pretty much irrelevant.

On Friday, I decided to use tweetdeck’s trusty global filter, to mute all tweets with the words “Sarah Palin” or “Glenn Beck” in them. Quite frankly, I’m tired of people on the left making a big deal over every single thing Palin and Beck say. The obsession the left has with “calling out” people like Palin is a massive waste of time. When I mentioned this on twitter, of course people disagreed saying that Palin and Beck are influential and that we have to speak out against people who threaten our…something…or other. Frankly, I don’t know and I don’t care.

It’s time for the left to take responsibility for Palin. Sure the right made her relevant insofar as the election was concerned. But after that, her existence and any remaining attention she’s gotten has been provided to her by the liberal crowd–whether it was Oprah’s questionable decision to have her on her show to promote her “book” or the constant overreactions to every idiotic thing she says.

This is a pattern with the left and it feeds into Palin’s plans. If people remember, way back after the election when conservatives governors met for their annual meeting, the media kept asking whether or not Palin was a leader in the party. GOP Governors and members of Congress spent the entire week trying to shrug off questions about the moose-hunting mother of five. It was clear they didn’t know what role, if any, she should play in their party going forward. Even her speaking role at the conference was begrudgingly allowed. But the mainstream media and the media on the left continued to make her role an issue.

Continue Reading…

I’m the first to admit that I’m not a fan of former Kansas City Star columnist Jason Whitlock. I think he’s popular not because he’s a good writer or because his analysis of sports is on point, but because he’s controversial. And in today’s environment, whatever gets page views, ad clicks, or attention wins the day. On Friday, Whitlock took to the airwaves to talk for over an hour about why he was leaving the Kansas City Star for the Fox network.

Whitlock accused the Kansas City Star of all sorts of improprieties, but what his problem boiled down to was that he asked for something from his bosses and didn’t get it.

Join the club.

Obviously, Whitlock didn’t just notice the ethical issues at the Star just prior to quitting his job. The reality is, he was more than happy to overlook those flaws as long as he was getting what he wanted. But when he went to his bosses and asked for them to “maximize” their use of him (he wasn’t specific during the portion of the interview I heard, but I take that to mean giving him a lot more attention and money) suddenly everything he’d witnessed at the paper became an issue of concern.

Much like Lebron James’ silly “Decision” special, Whitlocks “Explanation” episode was just as lengthy, tired and narcissistic. And while such a stunt may go over fine in the world of entertainment (notice, I didn’t say journalism), for the rest of you 9 to 5ers and freelancers and other people who care about whether or not you ever work again, making a point of publicly dissing your former employer isn’t the right call.

Continue Reading…

The firestorm Press Secretary Robert Gibbs created when he brutally rebuffed the criticism of the administration levied by what he referred to as the “professional left” begs some questions about what it means to be the left, what it means to be progressive, what it means to be liberal, and, quite frankly, what it means to be a Democrat.

I fairly certain that all of these terms mean something different yet I’m hard pressed to strictly define them. I’ve long considered myself a Democrat, not because I’m not a conservative and not because I’m a liberal, but because I believe in what is (or at least what once was) the Democratic party platform.  That probably automatically qualifies me as a leftie, but that says nothing as to how progressive I am and doesn’t speak to the degree of liberalness my policy views entail.

Where I am going with this? Oh yes…

President Obama.

Throughout the primaries and most certainly during the actual Presidential election cycle, the right painted a scarlet “L” across the President’s chest in an effort to make the then-candidate less appealing. But that “L” really had not much to do with Obama’s vision for the country or actual views on policy in America.

Since the right has all but been co-opted by Neo-cons who are more neo than con and Tea Partiers who are dissatisfied but have only a vague notion of why and what they want to do about it, the ideas coming from the right side of the pendulum for at least 10 years have largely been either too extreme or nonexistent.  This phenomenon has created a lot of default liberals (and even default Democrats like Arlen Specter) and I would argue that the President is one.

Who doesn’t look liberal next to the party of Glenn Beck? Having no other option, the lefty media and the as-yet-undefined presidential candidate settled into a willing political arranged marriage.  The environment seemed prime for Obama to have the type of relationship with the left cohort that Bush had with the right.

But that hasn’t happened. And that’s why the leftist media is in a tizzy and the administration is frustrated. The left media is defined not by who they are but who they’re not. There are degrees of the left–not every outlet is the same. Politico seems more akin to the The Daily Caller when you compare it to The Nation.  Salon’s bipolar coverage of politics and Keith Olbermann’s predictable histrionics is enough to make you long for Maddow’s steady hand. Yet the perception of sameness remains, and it matters more to the deliverer of the message (an administration) than it does to the distributor (the media). Quite frankly, it’s confusing on the left. The right has it easy in this regard.

Consequently, Gibbs’ frustration with the left’s criticism isn’t just about what being said, it’s also about finding a home for what he wants to say.  And currently, the administration’s messages are homeless.

The question is did the media on the left abandon the messages or did the administration run away from home?