But when people die and the spill seems months away from containment–and decades from clean-up–there will be no competing narrative for the pr folks to leverage.  The spill is what it is, the failures to stop it as damaging as the explosion itself, and the company could well go under or disappear from this accident.  People like me won’t play much of a part in how that plays out.

In most of the crises I am involved in, there is a context and a story to tell that helps position the client.  In some of the more difficult ones, of course, all you can do is try to stop the bleeding until you can get your footing to turn the story around.  And in others– like the oil spill– all you can do is keep your head down and try to adsorb the punches that are being thrown.  That’s about where BP is now.

What may be more interesting to us Post-watchers is how the story is written– more as a Paul Harvey broadcast piece than the standard-issue Post article.  It is light and breezy, making fun of the would-be robbers, sarcastic and ridiculing all at the same time,  very un-like the Post’s typical writing style.  It also doesn’t really have a larger point.  There isn’t much about the robbery– which happened in early December– to stand out among the daily crime that takes place on the east edge of DC.  Is this a new direction for the Post?  Did they take the handcuffs off their reporters to allow them more leeway in how they write articles like this?  Hard to know.  Is this a trend at the Post?  Who’s to say…

This lack of full disclosure by Chertoff was dutifully reported by what’s left of the what used to be called the Washington Post, in a prominent article on New year’s day in the front section of the paper.   I assume that Mr. Chertoff is a sincere supporter of this full-body scanning equipment, but some sort of disclaimer when touting the machines would have been the professional way to handle such a conflict.

What I find just as interesting is how the Post handled the issue.  The article, on page A7, is headlined, “Chertoff accused of abusing public trust by touting body scanners.”  It goes on to report on the dozens of media interviews in which Chertoff neglected to tell any of the reporters about his financial interests.

Now jump ahead in the same New Year’s Day Post, into a front-and-center op-ed by Chertoff (page A15), headlined, “Plugging a security gap,” and touting the full-body scanner.  You will look in vain in the body of the op-ed for a disclaimer about the very same conflict that merited the Post’s own critical article.  If you dive down into the fine print following the end of the op-ed, in smaller font describing Chertoff’s credentials, you will finally find a reference to his consulting group “whose clients include a manufacturer of body-imaging screening machines.”

Now, I’m not a believer that it is always hypocritical to represent a position that you might have a financial interest in.  I think readers make their won judgments and are fully able to give opinion leaders the benefit of the doubt if they disclose their interests.  What I find remarkable is that the Post’s editors don’t even seem to bother reading their own paper any more.  How can you make a big deal out of Chertoff’s meager disclosure of his conflict, and then become his enabler just a few pages later?  Have they just given up hope of survival and quit putting in a full day’s work?  Just another sign that the once great newspaper is a shadow of itself– a journalistic train wreck slowly sinking further.  It’s getter hard to watch.

I has a spirited discussion with Adam this morning about his advice.  I don’t disagree with the concept in general that Adam outlines in the Post, that “You shouldn’t have to go out there one, two or three times and get killed in dribs and drabs. You should make sure the story got out there, and not let it play out over time.”

Adam’s larger argument, which didn’t make the Post, is that by coming clean himself early one, admitting publicly to the details of his infidelities and transgressions, would have generated more public sympathy for Tiger.  That’s where I disagree.  For me, if Tiger had issued a full, forthright statement early on, it would have been just as much of a mess.  He would have had to disclose that he had had multiple girlfriends over long periods of time, with frequent sexual partners, some of whom were prostitutes, both at a time when his wife was pregnant and his father was dying (if you believe the tabloid accounts given by the dozen or more lovers who have come forward).

I just don’t see how that full disclosure buys him any additional sympathy. I still think Tiger’s statements were the correct response– not they have lessened the blowback.  But I don’t see any tactic in this type of situation that would successfully mitigate the damage considering the details.  One or even two affairs you can message [see, Bill Clinton, President].  A dozen skanky ones and all the sordid details is a whole different challenge.

Alas, those days may be over.  Yesterday’s New York Times carried a lengthy and persuasive analysis of the Journal’s Washington bureau and makes the case that it has taken a hard turn to the right.  Like quoting from Rush Limbaugh high up in Ted Kennedy’s obituary criticizing the Senator; referring to estate taxes as death taxes without quotes around the term; having articles always questioning the costs of health care reform but never citing the benefits; and taking shots at Obama whenever they can.  In the news section, not just the editorial pages.

As a former reporter, I am of course disappointed to see this major change at the Journal.  It will drive away whatever good reporters are left there (and there are still many).   And it will start that drip, drip, drip of suspicion by readers like myself who wonder how the Journal editors have slanted each story out of Washington.  This is not good for the Journal or for journalism.