How Is My Site?
View Results
I know, I thought I had written my last post on tiger’s difficulties, but an article in today’s Washington Post has prompted one more shot. The article quotes my good friend, former White House co-damage control team member, and public affairs specialist Adam Goldberg, who runs the Orrick law firm’s crisis management team, criticizing Tiger’s strategy to not come clean at the beginning, allowing public opinion to mount against him.
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.
Loading ...