In this recent news blitz on Herman Cain's alleged sexual harassment case, I am again reminded about the news media's ridiculous notions of the rules of disclosure.
Since the reporter seeks a higher salary through satisfying thepowers that be in his news organization, we must understand the dynamics. The reporter has low standards of proof to put himself in front of the public with hos information. The target has high standards of proof to overcome bad news. This simply reflects the rules of the game that most likely increases the reporter's salary and income over time.
To understand how perverse this self-serving methodology is, let's pretend that these same rules applied in court. What would be the outcome.
To keep this example as close to a real lawsuit, let us pretend the reporter was filing a libel or slander claim against a private citizen. Under the rules that reporter claim should apply, once the reporter filed the lawsuit, he has the right to say anything he wants about the private citizen.
In the news reporter's world view, the level of proof the reporter must meet is simply, "I accuse you. Now disprove my accusation." The reporter need show no papers, no recorded statements, or no evidence that private citizen was even in the place where the accusation suggests the wrong doing occurred. The reporter believes Mr Citizen now has to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Any flaw or hesitation means the reporter's flimsy accusations are true. No trial. No argument. Instant verdict in the court of public opinion.
The problem is that people seeking damageto their reputation have an incentive to keep their had down and protect their good name. The reporter's false promise is that playing by the reporter's arbitrary and capricious rules the citizen can end the problem quickly.
To truly fight and win this type of battle with the press is to be able to identify the self-serving nature of the reporter's rules and require the reporter do work before the response is forthcoming. It also requires persistent repetition of a strong statement of the rules of fair play:
1. I respond to specific allegations as to time, manner, place, and person.
2. I respond to corroborated evidence only.
3. If a judge wouldn't consider the case, I certainly won't.
4. I will sue for slander and libel.
5. Anonymous sources need not be disclosed to the public, but they must be disclosed to me before I will respond.
6. New questions do not demand instant responses. Instant responses only serve cameras. I serve the truth.
To fight the media this way means you will have days or weeks whee your message of the day is not served. PR consultants believe this is bad. In truth, those days will happen. It is better to have the battle early in a campaign. Set down a marker for the media. If you are clean, you will more message days than fewer. If you follow the reporter's preferred path, you are on their message when they choose.
