Pelosi’s PR Disaster

Good PR Advise Could Have Averted the Matter

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi took a terrible PR gamble when she said the CIA had misinformed Congress about the use of torture techniques in 2002.  Not only was the gamble unnecessary and completely avoidable, the incident is a vivid demonstration of why PR professionals should know when to consult a lawyer.

The entire Pelosi-CIA affair is hardball politics gone terribly awry in which political calculation took precedence over sound PR strategy.  Moreover, those estimations were completely unsound because the accusation Pelosi made about the CIA is a federal crime that required the agency to answer the charge.  Worse still, if Pelosi had used a simple set of words to alter the context, nobody would be talking about it today.

Pelosi’s combative style combined with the idea that CIA Director Leon Panetta, a fellow Democrat and Californian, would likely give Pelosi a pass on the matter.  Thus the ill-advised words “lied” and “misled” were used without any qualification whatsoever.  The former verb should have never been used, and the second would have been better employed in a different context.

As someone with a substantial amount of government relations experience, I know the job doesn’t lend itself to the stark declarative phrases Pelosi used.  Politics is too fluid for that, and expressions lacking any interpretive ambiguity must be thoroughly considered, because they’re potential time bombs.  In this case, it may just be a cluster bomb with many more bomblets remaining to detonate in the Speaker’s face.  The most stunning aspect of the controversy from a public relations perspective is how completely preventable it was.

If Pelosi framed her comments in terms of her understanding, she would not be in this situation.  She could have said, “I feel misled, because it wasn’t my understanding that anyone was being actively tortured.”  No one can seriously impeach her feelings or her understanding at the time.  These are innately personal experiences that can’t be quantified by external documentation.  Declarations of “fact” can be.

The worst that could have happened in the above scenario would have been a challenge to her ability to understand things.  However, that’s easily countered with her long history in the Senate and the nature of power itself.  Only the most secure and vitriolic Republican would dare to make such a personal attack, because Pelosi’s position and influence can affect an enormous range of pending legislation.  That’s called “soft power,” and the Speaker should learn how to use it.

Any such attack could have been further mitigated by a description of the briefings themselves, which are dull, dry affairs full of ambiguity and inaccuracy.  The Valerie Plame affair and the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq could have been used to reinforce that position.

The moral of the story is that every word matters.  By simply adding the words “feel” and “understanding,” Speaker Pelosi would not be where she is now.  Worse, it’s difficult to retreat to those words, because she has fully committed herself in earlier statements. 

Speaker Pelosi, your best option is to take a few news cycles to soften your stance.  Slowly inject increasing ambiguity into future comments - one word at a time.  You’ll probably be subjected to some ridicule, but that’s still better than a legal matter arising, and you’re strong enough to withstand the attacks anyway.  Finally, apologize to the operatives who provided the information and thank them for their diligence.  Admit the mistake of not questioning the briefers in greater detail and promise never to do that again. 

Whoever is advising you with regard to your statements should also be asked to review classic strategy in crisis communications - unless you did this on your own without consulting your communications professionals.  In that case, you owe them an apology too, and they’ll likely advise you the same way I did.