An enormous problem with paid media, especially at the congressional level, is it all starts to look alike.
Take the [1980] Jimmy Carter-Ronald Reagan debate. Carter kept trying to imply that somehow Ronald Reagan was going to push the button, or was irresponsible with nuclear war. You might have been able to make the case that Carter was responsible. But it's very tough when you see a person with Reagan's nice-guy persona up there to believe this guy somehow wants nuclear war, that he somehow wants to antagonize the Russians into an attack. It's just not credible; it doesn't cut with what all your other senses are telling you.
As long asthe audience or the public perceives you to be sincere in your approach and not petty, they will think it's fair and they will wait for the other person's response. But if they sense it's petty or the slightest bit unfair, they'll turn on you right away.
If you want to get unpaid media coverage, you had better be quotable. It's an interesting problem, because very few candidates are quotable.
In the Rather/Bush incident, it was totally unfair. CBS was trying him and convicting him and trying to execute him on national television. They had made up their minds. CBS made the fatal error of trying to become the political opposition to George Bush. And, when they did that, they put themselves in an arena where they can get knocked on their fanny.
When the media gets into creating their own product and then deciding to cover it, they are becoming part of the process and, therefore, could be damaged.
Taking on the media is something I would never tell a candidate to do. I'd advise him what I would do in that circumstance, but that's about it.
You better be able to defend it after the attack - so don't stretch it. In other words, if the guy's guilty of A and B, don't make him guilty of A, B, and C. That's what a lot of people do.
If you're running far behind in the polls and you decide to use comparative advertising, you have to be able to explain to the people why the incumbent shouldn't have then ob.
Phrase it in an interesting way; don't phrase it in a mean or unfriendly way. Bob Dole said that if there's anything he would have done differently, he would have said [to George Bush] "Start telling the truth about my record" instead of "Stop lying about my record." Frankly, had he done that, life might be different for Bob Dole today.
In general, I think man-on-the- street ads and endorsement spots are having less and less effect on people. The electorate's getting very sophisticated, and they want to make their own judgments.
There is a - deep down, underneath all the work I do, I think there's a laziness in me.
I look for something unique, and I look for people who haven't reached their potential. I think I'm pretty good at developing talent.
CNN International, Al-Jazeera and BBC are the same in how they report mostly that America is wrong and bad.
Just because somebody else likes a candidate doesn't necessarily mean everybody else will like him.
Reporters have a different point of view and a different job. Consequently, to the extent that you can help them turn in an interesting story that their editor is going to like and that's going to further their careers, they're going to give you more ink and cover you.
I grew up in the era when Dan Rather hated Richard Nixon. He was a newsman, but you knew what his opinion was.
I've found increasingly less effectiveness with the man-on-the street type of stuff that was very standard fare for years. It can still be effective, but it's got to be done well.
I've been in entertainment, politics, business, business coaching, public affairs, documentaries, programming, news, theater. So, there aren't many things I see that I haven't seen something like that before.
There was no news in the Dan Rather piece. They didn't say [to Bush]: "We found a piece of paper that was overlooked in the 300,000 pieces of paper that were covered in the Iran-Contra hearings, and we have a piece of news we'd like to ask you about." CBS decided to create a media event and cover it in its own fashion. This was unprecedented in American history. CBS cancelled two-thirds of the newscast... to get a guy and take him out.
It is a tremendous sacrifice to run for political office in America today.
Reporters may be friendly-but if you get through life without having a reporter as a friend, that may be an advantage. If you insist on having one as a friend, don't do interviews with him.
I would advise people occasionally to take the media on, but only when you know it's a manufactured product and not a news interview.
I think it's because I'm unpredictable. I view every situation, every race, and every candidate differently I try not to rely on something that worked before.
Fighting with the media almost always is a mistake. You can't win the argument, the media has the last word, and most times your argument is not justified.
