Words and PR Still Matter, At Least for Some of Us

For some PR professionals it was a close-mouthed “hmmm.” Others perhaps muttered a variation on, “Oh, well that explains it.” 

In both cases it was a reaction to more news about the Ivy League presidents whose careers were upended after they attempted to wriggle out of a difficult question using legalistic language on Capitol Hill last week. 

The story, which like many PR crises, gets worse daily, moved several times last Saturday, including the resignations of University of Pennsylvania’s president Liz Magill and board chair Scott Bok. 

Seat at the Table

Another less-mentioned development from Saturday’s news -- though one of importance for PR pros and cause of the reactions mentioned in our lead sentences -- was a report in the NY Times that 2 of the 3 presidents, Magill and Harvard’s Claudine Gay, had white-shoe law firm, WilmerHale, prepare them for their ignominious moment on the Hill. As PR pro T.J. Winick quipped on LinkedIn, they didn’t seem prepared. From a PR perspective, he’s right.

Without picking on lawyers, let’s agree communicators see the Times’ story as more evidence that while attorneys can help prep an executive for a hearing, it’s also smart to have PR pros at the table. That’s because in most cases words still matter, especially when speaking about controversial issues in a highly charged environment. And especially when the words seem poorly chosen. 

Bottom line: Would a communicator’s counsel have avoided last week’s PR disaster on the Hill? Hard to say. And to be fair, we don’t know that a PR pro wasn’t part of WilmerHale’s prep session(s) for the college presidents.

Setting the Trap

The questioner, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), set up the presidents well, tasking them with explaining murky policies about free speech that they may or may not agree with. 

On the other hand, a PR pro might have worked with the presidents to anticipate and handle the most difficult questions lawmakers could pose. That’s PR 101. 

In addition, PR pros might have urged the presidents to read the room. Given the animus around the Israel-Hamas war and the heat it’s produced on college campuses, especially the Ivies, a communicator likely would have prepped the presidents to communicate from the heart, instead of appearing legalistic and cold. 

Even the departed Bok, who praised Magill, admitted she did poorly during the hearing, characterizing her as "over lawyered given the hostile forum and high stakes, she provided a legalistic answer to a moral question, and that was wrong … it made for a dreadful 30-second sound bite in what was more than five hours of testimony."  

Words Don’t Really Matter?

Magill and Gay aren’t the only examples of high-profile people who sometimes underestimate the importance of communication. Several prominent figures provide regular evidence of what not to do when the cameras and microphones are on. 

Similar to Rep. Stefanik, who gave Magill and Gay several swings at questions about hate speech on campus, Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, served up a soft, slow Eephus pitch to Donald Trump last week during a town hall. 

Hannity seemed to urge the former president to blast critics and media outlets claiming that a second Trump administration would center on retribution. “You are promising America tonight you would never abuse power as a retribution against anybody?” Hannity said. As you know, Trump took the bait, stating or joking he’d be “a dictator only on day one.” 

Considering Trump is accused of the dictator-like offense of overturning an election, it’s unlikely a thinking PR pro would counsel him to include remarks about dictators in his talking points.

Clear Language

Likewise, Andrew Ross Sorkin, New York Times columnist and CNBC host, seemed willing to help Elon Musk off the ledge after the entrepreneur and X owner told advertisers generally and Disney chief Bob Iger specifically to f-themselves if they thought leaving X would destroy the platform. (He used the actual expletive on stage, during a large industry event.)

Disney, Walmart and other name brand advertisers and more than a few users have departed X in recent weeks after Musk endorsed an antisemitic post. 

After Musk’s initial f-yourself, his interviewer Ross Sorkin remained calm, seemingly urging him to reconsider. Instead, Musk doubled down, noting f-yourself is clear language. 

Who Needs PR? 

Musk’s disdain for PR is well known, as is Trump’s refusal to remain on script or absorb communicators’ advice. 

Let’s make this anti-PR cabal a bit larger and bring in the Supremes, the Supreme Court that is, which continues to refuse having cameras in its courtroom. Certainly, SCOTUS has a communications operation, but its purview seems severely limited. How else to explain the court’s non-response response to two justices’ ethical lapses? 

In the latest development in this death-by-a-thousand-cuts PR mess, the court, under pressure, issued an ethics code. In short, it’s not even a slap on the wrist. It merely codified existing practices. Worse, following the code is voluntary.

So, words and PR input don’t matter as much for a former US president, a billionaire entrepreneur and the highest court in the land. For the rest of us and Ivy League presidents, they still do.