Unbiased Crisis PR Lessons From The Trump & Stormy Daniels Matter

According to various news reports, the Fulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis will decide in mid-August whether to bring charges against former President Donald Trump for attempting to overthrow Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results.  Those suppositions are based on Ms. Willis requesting the chef judge of the courthouse to not schedule any trials or in-person hearings at the Fulton County courthouse in those weeks. 

As we grow closer to the date of her decision, many new valuable “not to do” PR lessons will emerge, as they have since the beginning of the various civil and criminal investigations of Mr. Trump began.

But let’s not forget the PR lessons from what triggered the initial indictment of the twice-impeached, criminally-indicted former president – a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The trial date for the hush money payment is March 25, 2024. Below are nonpartisan crisis PR lessons that should have been learned from the lead-up to the date. (Keep your note books at the ready. More lessons related to the hush money payments are likely to occur before the court house doors are open.)  

Lesson 1: This is the most important one, in my opinion. It is also the most difficult one for PR people to control: Keeping a client, in this case Mr. Trump, from continually making statements that immediately result in additional negative media coverage. Lesson to be remembered:  By continually speaking out, the former president assured that the allegations against him would remain a major news story, even on days when more important news, like the bank failures occurred. PR people should advice clients in trouble to let their lawyers do the speaking.

Lesson 2: Each time Mr. Trump called the investigation by New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg a “witch hunt,” print and TV stories reported on his statements: Lesson to be remembered:  The net result was additional negative coverage of Mr. Trump because the reporting always included the alleged criminal charges against him. PR people should familiarize clients with the negative media coverage that powerful CEO’s of Boeing, Wells Fargo, and BP received by thinking that their speaking out can control the media. See lesson one.

Lesson 3: If a client insists on commenting about accusations, PR people must warn the client that the remarks will not sway a skeptical media.  Lesson to be remembered:  In Mr. Trump’s case, documentation shows that he has lied so often that whatever he says will result in additional negative coverage.  See lessons one and two.

Lesson 4: Mr. Trump has denied having the affair with Ms. Daniels. Lesson to be remembered:  Based on his past behavior his denials also generated negative media coverage, as reporters included the history of the matter in their reports. See Lesson three.

Lesson 5: Mr. Trump’s and his surrogates denied hush money payments to Ms. Daniels. Lesson to be remembered:  Doing so had TV producers book Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, to counter the claims of the past president’s supporters. Checks written by Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen often were seen during those interviews and bolstered Mr. Cohen’s contentions. See all above lessons.

Lesson 6: Mr. Trump called for his supporters to, “TAKE OUR NATION BACK” Lesson to be remembered:  PR people should attempt to prevent clients from making statements that are certain to engender negative media coverage. In Mr. Trump’s case, his comments generated media coverage of his Jan. 6, 2021 statement, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” which many people believe helped incite the deadly insurrection on Capitol Hill. His remark also led to inclusion in stories that he is under a Justice Department investigation for making statements that led to the insurrection. See lesson one.

Lesson 7: Some PR crisis specialists believe that having surrogates defend a client during a crisis will help their client, and Mr. Trump’s supporters were frequent guests on TV programs. I am not of that belief. While using that tactic will allow the client’s talking points to be echoed by a third party (usually a very good tactic in none controversial matters), when it’s done during a crisis I believe it can backfire because of pushback by reporters. Lesson to be remembered:  Opinions by supporters of clients in trouble are like speaking to the choir. See lesson one.

Lesson 8: One defender of Mr. Trump, Ben Domenech, co-founder and publisher of The Federalist, who left the magazine last year to become editor-at-large of The Spectator, praised the former president’s aggressive PR strategy. He said on Howard Kurtz’s Fox Media Buzz program that by speaking out Trump was “controlling the narrative” and “getting ahead of the story.” These are flawed sounding-good PR strategies dating back to the Neanderthal era that I believe do not work and should have been ditched eons ago. “Getting ahead of the story” and “controlling the narrative” are talking points that have no lesson in reality: There is no way to sideline reporters from investigating and reporting about a situation; likewise“getting ahead of the story.” Lesson to be remembered:  Mr. Trump’s speaking out did nothing to control the coverage. In fact, it had the opposite affect, resulting in negative stories as reporters countered his claims. See lessons one and seven.

While the facts are different than the Stormy Davis lawsuit, there are similarities in the dueling lawsuits between Mr. Trump and E Jean Carroll. During the lead-up to Ms. Carroll’s initial lawsuit, Mr. Trump continually denied knowing her and everytime he did it led to negative media coverage. 

Also, Mr. Trump’s not being able to control his tongue when talking about Ms. Carroll led to more than just negative coverage.

Mr. Trump called Ms. Carroll a “wack job” and said that her allegations of him assaulting her were “fake” during a CNN interview. As a result, Ms. Carroll amended a 2019 lawsuit against the ex-president, asking for an additional sum of $10-million. 

History will show that an aggressive publicity effort by a client in a crisis has no positive affect on the media coverage. In fact, in many cases it leads to additional negative coverage. The press coverage of Boeing’s safety problems; Wells Fargo’s banking troubles; Volkswagen’s emissions cover-up; BP’s oil spill; tobacco manufactures claiming that they didn’t know smoking can cause health problems and the National Football League’s denying that concussions can lead to brain damage should be used as examples by PR practitioners that silence by CEO's is often the best strategy and corporate attorneys should do the talking.

Conclusion: Mr. Trump’s aggressive media outreach resulted in much more negative coverage than it did him good. He would have been better off staying silent and letting his attorney’s talk for him because many of his statements bolstered the cases against him and can be used in court. PR Lessons to be remembered: 1) During a PR crisis the goal should always be to lessen the damage to the client. A PR savvy corporate attorney can do that much better than PR people without legal training. 2) Many PR people complain that interference from attorneys prevent them from initiating a program that would have resulted in positive media coverage for the client. So what? Positive media coverage during a crisis is similar to putting a band-aid over a ruptured artery. 3) “Feel good” media coverage will not lessen a client’s legal problems. Good lawyering might. 4) Often during a crisis, the best strategy that public relations people can offer a client is that they should say nothing and let their attorneys to the talking.