Fraser
P. Seitel has been a communications
consultant, author and teacher for 30 years. He
may be reached directly at yusake
@aol.com.
He
is the author of the Prentice- Hall text The Practice of Public Relations,
now in its eleventh edition, and co-author of Idea Wise.
Order
from Amazon.com
Click
to order |
July 23, 2012 |
RESTORING CRISIS CREDIBILITY:
THE ZIMMERMAN METHOD |
|
By Fraser P. Seitel
Let’s say you’ve got a high profile client, who just happened to murder an unarmed teenager.
Said client, after spending time in the slammer for lying at a bail hearing, has been accused in the media of being a racist and sexual predator in addition to murderer and liar. One of your client’s primary accusers is the judge who is to preside at his murder trial.
Question: Does it make sense for your client to “go public” to begin to clear his name, or should he wait for the trial, rather than taking the risk of incriminating himself?
The answer, at least according to George Zimmerman, the Florida watch commander who killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and ignited a nationwide controversy, was clear.
Last week, Zimmerman went public for a one-hour interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News to begin to right his credibility ship.
And while lawyers bemoaned the “risk” of giving prosecutors an hour’s worth of material to pursue – Zimmerman made the right choice.
He acquitted himself admirably and made the right choice.
And however one might feel about Mr. Zimmerman, PR counselors might well learn from how he approached the assignment of beginning to restore his credibility. Here’s how he did it:
1. Assess your particular circumstances.
Lawyers will generally tell you to “shut up” before a trial. They’ll counsel you to let them do all the pre-trial talking, because if you incriminate yourself publicly, the other side will use it against you in court.
Of course, they have a point. But………….
If you haven’t done anything wrong, really are “telling the truth,” and are getting pilloried publicly by the other side, the lawyers are wrong.
In George Zimmerman’s case, the prosecutor bent on sending him to prison for life released damning audio tapes, including one “female cousin” who claimed that Zimmerman was a racist and had sexually abused her as a child. Meanwhile, the judge in the case publicly voiced the view that Zimmerman’s credibility was questionable, for not revealing contributions he had received from supporters.
With his credibility with potential jurors getting pilloried publicly, Zimmerman was right to throw legal wisdom aside and attempt to even the field by taking his case public.
2. Reduce the risk.
Of course, going public before a trial is risky. And it’s quite true that statements you make can and will be held against you. So ...
Like anything else in PR, you must be prepared. You must rehearse your answers to the most incriminating questions. You must listen to your lawyer’s guidance on how to answer certain inflammatory questions and which ones to avoid completely.
You must understand and faithfully execute your M.A.P.s – “must air points,” that, even if not asked, you will answer.
If you walk into an interview unprepared, you will lose. Your challenge is twofold: 1) make a strong, credible impression and 2) limit your risk.
Zimmerman did just that in his Hannity interview.
3. Choose a friendly interviewer.
Choice of the interviewer is critical.
In a highly-charged case like the Zimmerman-Martin murder, choosing an interviewer that presses the most controversial points can lose your case before it begins.
Zimmerman’s choice of Hannity was perfect.
Sean Hannity, from the beginning of the case, was clearly in Zimmerman’s corner. He spoke in support of Zimmerman, challenged the rebuke of activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and admonished his listeners to “keep an open mind.”
Predictably, his interview with Zimmerman was friendly, non-challenging, with little pushback. He gave the accused murderer an open field to state what happened, why he did what he did, and anything else he wanted to say to support himself.
When Zimmerman made a rare mistake – refusing to acknowledge he “would do anything differently” – Hannity allowed him a second chance at the end of the interview.
Zimmerman promptly corrected his error, saying he wished Martin were still alive. When Hannity raised the cousin’s “sexual abuse” allegation, Zimmerman cavalierly passed the accusation off as “ironic.” Hannity failed to press the point with the obvious follow-up question, “Yes but did you abuse her?”
Journalists might accuse Zimmerman’s interviewer of being “in the tank” for his guest. But from Zimmerman’s perspective, his interviewer was an ideal choice.
4. Stick to message.
Zimmerman’s reason for being interviewed was simple – to win back in the minds of potential jurors that his story was believable.
His key message was fourfold:
1) I am not a racist.
2) I am not a murderer.
3) I am not a monster.
4) I am not guilty.
On all four points, the accused murderer acquitted himself well.
5. Control your appearance.
How one looks, of course, is often more important than the content of one’s answers. Shifty eyes, slouchy posture and a shaky voice can all do in a person on trial.
Here, too, Zimmerman performed admirably.
-
He looked straight at his interviewer, his eyes never wavering.
-
He sat straight, neither too tense nor too relaxed, but apparently eager to state his view of events.
-
His voice, while not booming, was clear and determined to get across his story.
-
And while he slipped into unhelpful, nervous laughter from time-to-time, his tone throughout was generally serious, as the situation mandated.
Bottom line: George Zimmerman certainly didn’t hurt his cause and probably won points for himself with prospective jurors in his murder trial.
In so doing, he reminded public relations counselors that our job, on occasion, is to challenge conventional wisdom; especially if it comes from lawyers.
|
|
|
return to main page
of odwyerpr.com >> |
|
|
|
Responses: |
|
Brian M (7/23):
Choosing Hannity's show was a huge tactical error. Preaching to a small choir is not what his handler (lawyer, not PR person) should be doing. The only chance this guy has to turn around a few people would have been to do a national news show like Today or one of the evening news programs. There would have been tough questions and Zimmerman would have had to answer them.
Hannity's sugarplum interview did nothing for Zim but rally a few gun-rights nuts to a cause they were already behind.
Oh, and good luck with the rest of the PR campaign in the aftermath of Aurora.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (7/23):
I would urge a re-reading of my piece titled: HATE, HYPOCRISY AND MOB JUSTICE....in which I suggested Zimmerman may well be the worst person on earth but thst, in this country, we still do trials, and especially in a case with so few witnesses. No question Zimmerman's decision to go with Hannity and to make dumb demands on Barbara Walters will be less than helpful to his case if he has one. OTH, the media have done little as well to insist on what we still like to use as legal arbiters in such matters, something called trials.
[email protected] (7/23):
A good response to any PR crisis demands new and original thinking and keeping an open mind to all view points before deciding on a strategy. And that includes viewpoints from lawyers.
Wes Pedersen (7/25):
Fraser, who is handling Zimmerman's PR? Surely he has someone. He comes across as someone who has been coached long and hard by a lawyer with PR smarts. Or he has somehow managed to acquire both a lawyer and a PR guy. |
|