Arthur SolomonArthur Solomon

After years of listening to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer play word games with the English language by introducing pundits as “Chief Political Analyst,” I’ve had enough of cable TV’s attempt to camouflage talking heads with magniloquent titles in order to make their commentary seem meaningful. I’ve yet to hear these so-called TV political analysts analyze anything.

Expressing opinions, yes. Significant analysis, rarely if ever and none that I can think of. These are the same “expert analysts” that for more than a year assured us minute-by-minute, hour-after hour, day-after-day, week-after-week of a Clinton victory.

What CNN’s so-called analysts do is comment on statements by others, adding no new insight but plenty of lame opinions. Blitzer is famous for introducing his panels with grandiose titles. Everyone is either a “Senior” this or a “Chief” that.

Blitzer’s use of titles is obviously a ploy to get viewers to believe that the people he introduces are more than the average run-of-the-mill pundits from central casting. And some are genuine analysts, especially those retired from U.S. government service and individuals who worked in sensitive security areas. But you can take to the bank that what those individuals reveal are generalizations, because they’re sworn not to discuss secret details even after they’ve left government service.

Blitzer’s also guilty of misusing the phrase, “We have learned,” to give the impression that what they’re about to discuss is “breaking news,” when, in reality, I’d already learned of the news early that morning when reading the daily newspapers. Both Blitzer and his CNN colleague, Don Lemon, also use weasel reporting phrases, like, “We can now report that our reporters have confirmed the story broken by the New York Times" to convey the impression that they are “breaking news,” when in reality they’re practicing what I call parasitic journalism.

Blitzer is also guilty of misleading viewers with his frequent declarations of “breaking news,” when there is none. Perhaps he should reacquaint himself with the famous Aesop Fable, The Boy Who Cried Wolf, which imparts the importance of being truthful.

Blitzer’s use of inflationary titles reminds me of my early days in PR: Many titles are meaningless. When I was awarded a vice-president’s title, I was only one of a handful at Burson-Marstreller. Shortly after the dike broke and there were vice presidents by the dozens. Soon I became a senior VP and later advanced to a senior VP/senior counselor as more account handlers attained the senior VP title.

Other PR agencies used weasel titles that were even more deceiving. Everyone was a “partner” at one agency, except they really weren’t. Some used titles as a tool to delay salary increases or as a marketing ploy; cable TV broadcasters convey titles because they think it’ll impress viewers, but the most loosely-goosey use of English is by sports reporters, who continually use expressions that have no logical meaning, except to devotees of that type of entertainment.

Of course, political cable TV is nothing more than talk radio with pictures and should be considered as entertainment. Unfortunately, too many viewers believe the talkers really are divulging “breaking news,” when in reality only their opinions are being expressed.

PR agencies, and the people in our business who work at them, have as much credibility with the media as Trump spokespeople, our advertising partners, lawyers and unfortunately, the mainstream media. That’s a shame. Because it’s the print investigative reporting teams —missing from the so-called cable “news” programs — that are necessary to keep people in powerful positions honest and to rid the swamp of vermin.

PR people are notoriously egocentric about the importance of our business. Does it really matter to the continuance of American democracy or world peace if a product pitch or Op-Ed receives coverage, or that a seven figure PR program or multi-million dollar international sports promotion fails, except to those personally involved? Obviously not.

But what is said on cable TV matters because, sadly, so many people get their truncated and misleading news from watching it.

The real danger of playing games with words emanates from the White House. Almost daily, the President’s staff creates it own version of the truth, and they can’t keep up with the President who changes his mind about truth at a moment’s notice. The resulting White House press brief on events is rarely an accurate representation of what occurred.

Ever since Trump announced his candidacy — and continuing into his tenure as President — he and his staff have almost daily denied media stories. They’ve done it so often that one can say they’re in denial, in both the medical sense and layman use.

During his May 18 presser, Trump bragged about all the automobile jobs he’d saved. But the same day, the New York Times had a Business Day story detailing how Ford is cutting jobs, G.M. is limiting production shifts and Fiat Chrysler has ceased production at some plants.

On May 22, Trump even denied using the word “Israel,” when he divulged secret intelligence information to Russian diplomats in the Oval Office, even though no U.S. official had previously said that he did so.

On May 17, the President, feeling sorry for himself again, showed that he should have paid closer attention to his history teachers by saying, “no politician in history … has been treated worse or more unfairly.” Perhaps he should bone up on media coverage of Abraham Lincoln, FDR and Richard Nixon.

Anyone who closely follows political journalism notices one constant: the frequency with which Trump spokesman Sean Spicer says, “The story as reported is not an accurate representation of what occurred.”

***

Arthur Solomon was a senior VP at Burson-Marsteller. He now is a contributor to public relations and sports business publications, consults on PR projects and was on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at [email protected].