Posts

Media Training 4: They Took Me Out of Context and They Left My Best Stuff on the Cutting Room Floor

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

The 2 single biggest complaints I have heard from executives over the years, after they have done an interview, is that “the reporter took me out of context” or that “the reporter left my best stuff on the cutting room floor.” (If you are young, the cutting room is where
film was edited for TV news prior to the mid 1970’s. Film that was not used in the story was thrown to the floor during editing.)

Here is the God’s Honest Truth – First, if it was your best stuff it would be in the story. What you think is your best stuff and what the reporter thinks is your best stuff may be very different. But no reporter leaves your best stuff on the cutting room floor.  Secondly, reporters never intentionally take anyone out of context. If you are taken out of context there must be a reason for it and I think I know why. Let’s break it down –

In lesson 3 I emphasized the importance of talking in well worded, professionally written quotes. Why do we all know Neil Armstrong’s quote, “That’s one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind?” The reason we know it is because it is a well written quote from a professional writer and Armstrong practiced as part of his pre-flight training. It was not a spontaneous thought or ad lib by Neil Armstrong as he became the first man to set foot on the moon.

Your best stuff should be a well written practiced quote. Hey, if it is good enough for Neil Armstrong, it should be good enough for you.

Unfortunately, spokespeople who refuse to go through media training are usually guilty of making some spontaneous, inflammatory statement that becomes the quote. Generally they say something really dumb that they regret later. The problem is once it is said, it’s said. There is no taking it back. There is no do-over.

So my big rule for you in this category is that someone is going to edit what you say; it should be and must be you. Editing starts when the quote is written.

And remember this — reporters all recognize a good quote. If you want proof, attend a news conference and watch the reporters as they take notes. It is like watching a ballet as all of the reporters raise their notebooks at the same time to write a quote or fact as the spokesperson says something important. Then all of them put their notebooks down together, then raise them all together again as they hear the next important quote or fact.

Let’s now look at the issue of, “they took me out of context.”

Being taken out of context is usually the fault of the spokesperson. It is generally caused by the spokesperson being unclear, transposing important words, speaking in jargon or trying to give too many facts. That results in the reporter misunderstanding what the spokesperson meant. In short, something gets lost in translation.

How can you keep from being taken out of context?

Don’t try to overload the reporter with facts. Reporters write in an inverted pyramid style. That means they start with a headline that is the synopsis of the story. Then they add the next broad general fact and so on. Seldom does the reporter get into great detail and an abundance of facts. So, don’t get caught in the trap of trying to give too many facts.

Also, realize that the flaw of giving lots of facts and details is often a personality trait. Accountants, engineers, doctors and lawyers live in a world of details where numbers and facts must be precise. Hence, they want to be exact in what they say and they say too much; they give details beyond the reporter’s comprehension. A print reporter is likely only writing a 12-20 sentence synopsis, a radio reporter is only writing 6-8 sentences and a TV reporter is only writing 10-12 sentences. Usually the miscommunication begins when the spokesperson may want to tell the details of “War and Peace” but the reporter is only looking for the CliffsNotes.

If you keep it simple you help the reporter write their story without miscommunications or misinterpretation and you won’t be taken out of context. That’s why in so many media training programs the trainer will ask the spokesperson to focus on just their 3 most important messages.

Next, forget the corporate and non-profit jargon, buzzwords and the government acronyms. Jargon, buzzwords and acronyms are speed bumps to comprehension. They are easily misunderstood by the reporter. The reporter then writes what they think they heard you say. However, if you were not clear, then the story will be wrong. It is your fault and not their fault.

Finally, before the interview is over, ask the reporter if they clearly understand all of the words you used. An embarrassed reporter may nod their head in agreement, yet be too embarrassed to ask you to define certain terms that you used.

In summary… Keep it simple.

In our next lesson we’ll address bias in the media.

 

Media Training Breakthrough 2: Ask Yourself the Big IF Question

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

The Big IF is what I call my philosophy of media training.

I ask every executive that I media train this all important question: If you could attach a dollar to every word that comes out of your mouth, would you make money or lose money?

This is true for corporations that depend upon customers.

This is true for non-profits that depend upon donations.

This is true for government agencies that depend upon taxpayer and legislative approval for funding.

  • Say the wrong thing and your customers will buy elsewhere.
  • Say the wrong thing and your donations will dry up.
  • Say the wrong thing and funding to your government agency gets cut.
  • Say the wrong thing and lose your job. It is that serious.

Many executives are hesitant to carve out time in their schedule for media training. Why? Primarily because they think they are too busy. That translates into they are too busy doing things that help them or the organization make money (although, send them an invitation to a charity golf tournament and most will fit it into their schedule.).

Many people who do media interviews also let their egos get in the way. They are afraid to go through media training because they are afraid someone will see them mess up. It is for that very reason that I tell all of my media training students that at the end of class I insist they destroy the video tape used in our role playing interviews so that all of their mistakes stay in the training room.

The things I hear most often from executives who will not train are:

• I’ll just wing it.

• I’ll just be honest, shoot straight and tell them what I think.

• I don’t want to sound rehearsed. I like to be spontaneous.

My answer to that is that if you wing it, you’ll crash and burn.

As for honesty, I believe you should always be honest. The key to honesty is to choose every word carefully. For example, if we gathered a group of your biggest competitors in a room and asked you to unveil all the secrets to your business model and success, would you really tell them everything you know? Would you give them your playbook? It is a question of honesty after all. So if a reporter asks you the same question, will you tell them everything? They are going to print it and give it to your competitors.

As for being spontaneous, I spent 15 years in the media listening to people be spontaneous with me everyday. As they spoke, most days my general thought was, “I can’t believe this idiot just said that to me on camera.” By the time those comments were edited into my report and put on the evening news, most of those spontaneous, poorly worded comments were damaging to the spokesperson’s reputation, which also has a negative impact upon the organization’s revenue.

Was it fair for me to use the dumb, incriminating, negative things people said to me? Absolutely. After all, those people must have thought it was important because they said it to me. I’m just sharing their honesty with the public.

Let me also emphasize this. It’s one thing to look stupid in the news report. But the damage does not stop with the damage you do to your personal or organizational reputation. Every time you damage your reputation you lose money. How much you lose depends upon how big of a gaff you make and the specific topic.

When you say something stupid that gets in print, on the radio or on TV, you also destroy your credibility with your employees. You also cause embarrassment to your employees and you potentially have a negative effect on their productivity; that will cost you money also.

So I ask the question again: If you could attach a dollar to every word you say, would you make money or lose money?

A well prepared, well rehearsed, well internalized message makes people want to do business with you, buy your products or support your cause.

As for not wanting to sound rehearsed, it is important to realize that the old adage about practice makes perfect, is true.

Many people make the mistake of trying to memorize what they want to say. Memorizing means you only know the words in your head. The secret is to internalize what you want to say. Internalizing means you know it in your heart and you know it in your heart to be true.

In order to internalize your message, you first have to go through the process of learning it in your head before transferring it to your heart, then sending it from your heart to mouth.

If it is a lie, you cannot store the message in your heart and you will not be able to effectively verbalize it.  So internalizing your message means that it is a well worded honest message.

My final tip on this topic is to treat every interview with the same importance that you treat every business deal. Before entering into a contract, countless hours are spent in preparation and negotiations. Why? Because it affects the bottom line. Well, the same due diligence and time needs to be put into preparing for a media interview. That means you need to schedule time to anticipate questions, prepare well worded answers, and to train and practice until you get every answer perfect every time. Then and only then should you do an interview with the media.

Every interview is as important as every business deal.

In our next lesson, we’ll take a look at the wants, needs and desires of the media.

The Doctor of Crisis Communications

/0 Comments/in , /by

Crisis communications doctor gerard braudIf you were a smoker and your doctor told you to stop or you would die of cancer, would you stop?

If you had diabetes and your doctor told you to change your diet so you don’t die, would you change?

Amazingly, there are people every day who ignore the advice of an expert and do the wrong thing. Some are stubborn. Some are in denial. Some just magically hope the problem will go away.

I’m watching two crisis communications patients die right now. As their doctor of crisis communications I submitted to each a plan of action that they could have taken long ago, when the early warning signs of a crisis were on the horizon. Both are major smoldering crises on the brink of igniting.

Time was on the side of each patient 60 days ago when they first contacted me. Time is now their enemy because the flash point has arrived and the media are writing stories on each. No messaging has been written. No news releases created. No media training has been conducted.

A doctor can’t miraculously cure cancer in a patient that has refused to listen to expert medical advice. Likewise, we in public relations are called upon too often to make miracles happen. We can’t always do it.

I could try to save each of these patients, but I know the effect of the communications we would do so late would be about 1/6th as effective as what was originally suggested. I know that this marginal benefit would cost them much more than the original plan, with less than satisfactory results. I don’t know that I want my name associated with a marginal response that lacks planning and execution.

Persuading audiences, engaging employees and communicating to the media takes time. Strategies are best done on a clear sunny day. Media training and writing a crisis communications plan should have been done weeks ago.

In one case, an organization will face very expensive legal bills and payouts. Their reputation will be damaged. People will likely get fired.

In another case, lawsuits will likely be filed, the institutions reputation will be damaged, I predict their revenue will fall, and there will be an employee revolt. The best employees will quit and go to work for their competition. Many angry employees will remain on the job, polluting the human resources culture for a decade or more. In the process, customer service will suffer, leading to a greater loss in revenue. This institution may also get gobbled up by a competitor as the value of the company drops.

Why do people ask for advice and ignore it? Who knows? They just do.

By Gerard Braud

Media Training Tip: Ebola Crisis Communications Interviews

/0 Comments/in , /by

EBOLA webinar Gerard BraudThe Ebola crisis has spawn a rash of spokespeople saying things to the media that should have never been said. If you are the public relations person responsible for writing statements and news releases for your hospital, company or spokesperson, this blog is for you. If you are the media trainer preparing the spokespeople, this blog is for you. If you are the spokesperson… yep, this blog is for you.

Behold exhibit # 1: A news release statement from October 15, 2015, as a second nurse at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital becomes ill from Ebola.

The hospital released a statement saying, “Patient and employee safety is our greatest priority and we take compliance very serious.”

YOU CAN’T SAY THAT! Really, you cannot defend that statement PR team from Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital.

Here’s why: If it were true, two nurses would not have Ebola. Do you follow my thinking? Two nurses have Ebola because safety was obviously not the greatest priority and obviously compliance was not taken seriously.

Every time I teach media training or do a conference presentation, my advice to PR people and CEOs is to run every statement through the cynic filter. I just demonstrated my cynicism… and trust me, I’m a huge cynic. If you filter your statement past me, will you get a positive reaction or a negative reaction? That my friends, is the cynic filter.

My apologies to the PR team if this was not your words, but the words of your lawyers or PR firm or agency. But as a public relations professional, your job is to shout “No” when a B.S. statement like that is written or proposed.

Back in August, when the Ebola story broke regarding Emory University Hospital, CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden made bold statements about Ebola not spreading in the U.S. He was wrong.

Dr-Anthony-FauciDr. Anthony Fauci, with the National Institute of Health, in an interview on the Today Show this week, on October 11, 2014, said, “We’re not going to see an outbreak” of Ebola in the U.S. He even references Dallas as an example of proper containment of the virus, which as we all now know, is wrong.

Once again, if you are a spokesman, you can’t say that. You can’t defend that statement. You cannot guarantee it so you should not say it in an interview.

If you are the person providing media training for the spokesperson, you cannot allow the spokesperson to say something like that. You have to be so intense in the media training class that you push the student to the point of failure in the training class, pick them up, fix them, and don’t release them from role playing until they are perfect. Media training should be designed to let a spokesperson fail in private so they don’t fail on national TV, or any interview.

Close isn’t good enough. A crisis this serious demands the best communications possible. There is no margin for error in interviews just like there is no margin for error in containing a serious disease.

Would you like to know the magic words that will set you free? Insert the word, “goal” and throw away the words, “committed” and “top priority.” My top priority is to get people to stop saying top priority and committed.”

Instead of saying, “Patient and employee safety is our greatest priority and we take compliance very serious,” a better option is to say, “Our goal is to protect the safety and health of every patient and every employee.” (Yes, I intentionally used “every” twice.)

My statement is one that can be defended because it is stated as “a goal.” It is forward looking and aspirational, while not definitive, such as, ““Patient and employee safety is our greatest priority and we take compliance very serious.”

If you are responsible for writing statements that get re-written with tired clichés by your lawyers or CEO, your job, as a public relations professional, is to push back. If you write these type of clichés because you were taught to do this or have heard these clichés so many times that you think this is the way it should be done, please stop.

If you are responsible for media training your spokesman, you must not be afraid to push back when the student doesn’t perform well. As the trainer, you must not be intimidated, especially if you are training your boss, or in the case of a hospital, a powerful doctor.

We have an Ebola crisis on our hands. Are you making it better or worse with your statCrisis communication workshop gerard braudements?

We’ll talk about these issues and more this Friday in a special webinar about Ebola. Register here.

If you need help with your Ebola key messages, contact me for assistance writing bullet proof key messages. And if you need help media training your spokespeople, I’m happy to help. Call me at 985-624-9976.

— By Gerard Braud

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ebola Crisis Communications Lesson: Ask for Help

/0 Comments/in , /by

EBOLA webinar Gerard BraudOf all the Power Point presentations by his leadership team members, the CEO only stood and applauded the vice president who showed he was having difficulties in his division, when the other vice presidents showed rainbows and green lights. The company was millions in debt with falling sales and the CEO knew that everyone who painted a rosy picture was either a liar or delusional. The one who asked for help was the star.

A colleague shared this story supporting my premise in yesterday’s Ebola communication considerations blog. In the blog I suggested that public relations, marketing, media relations and crisis communication professionals will not be fired if they ask for help. Instead, your CEO and leadership team will respect you for telling the truth and knowing that your truth may save the reputation and revenue of your organization.

Crisis communication workshop gerard braudThe field of communications is misunderstood, even by the C-Suite. Many CEOs and executives hire one person to manage their image. They expect publicity. Often the CEO will hire a marketing specialist, never realizing that marketing is not public relations, media relations, or crisis communications. Sadly, many with MBAs don’t really understand the differences either.

Even in public relations, many do not realize how difficult it is to be a crisis communication expert. The expert is the one who prepares on a clear sunny day for what might happen on your darkest day. At the university level, most public relations classes touch on crisis communication as an evaluation of how well you manage the media after a crisis erupts. That is outdated and flawed. Preparation = professionalism.

Fearing reprisal from their leadership, some people in our allied fields would rather try to disguise their lack of knowledge and expertise rather than asking for help. But in the C-Suite, the reality is the boss wants you to speak up and say, “I need help. This is beyond my level of expertise.” Most people in the C-Suite, while never wanting to spend money they don’t have to spend, realize that getting help from an expert could preserve their reputation and revenue.

Don’t try to fake it. That will ultimately cost you your job, as well as the company’s reputation and revenue.

Never be afraid to say, “I don’t know the answer to that.”

Ask for help.

If you’d like some FREE help, join me on Friday, October 17, 2014 for a free webinar that explores what you need to do today to prepare for your possible Ebola communications tomorrow. Register here.

 

— By Gerard Braud

NFL Crisis Lesson: 3 Steps to Good Ethics and Leadership in Crisis Management and Crisis Communications

/0 Comments/in , /by
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell

By Gerard Braud

Crisis management and crisis communications depend upon honesty and ethical leadership. The easiest way to define good, ethical behavior is to consider that your behavior and discussions in private should be the same as if the entire world were watching and listening.

I suspect the NFL crisis is confounded by the same type of discussions that took place at Penn State during their child abuse scandal. Generally, a bunch of old white guys – yes I said it – gather in a room and all say, “If people find out about this we’re dead. If people find out about this, we’re ruined. If people find out about this, we’ll lose boat loads of money.”

The group usually goes on to make decisions designed to hide the facts from the world as a way to protect their reputation and revenue.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The proper way for any institution or company to protect their reputation and revenue and end a crisis is to do the right thing the first time by:

1) Letting the world know the full extent of what you have uncovered in your investigation

2) Punishing those who are at the root of the crisis

3) Announcing steps to keep it from happening again.

Roger Goodell and the NFL:

1) Only let the world know part of what happened and likely hid facts they knew

2) Handed down a punishment based on the world not knowing the full truth about Ray Rice

3) Are now announcing steps to give money to groups who advocate against domestic violence

Domestic violence is not the crisis at hand in the NFL. The crisis is denial, arrogance, and bad ethics by the people responsible for leading the NFL.

Yes, domestic violence is an issue for some players, but so is womanizing, drinking, drugs, DUI, getting in car wrecks, theft, dog fighting, and even murder. The players in the NFL are a representation of the population at large and the NFL can only do so much to raise awareness about all of these issues.

Ray Rice isn’t the first player guilty of domestic violence and will not be the last. The NFL didn’t throw money at domestic violence prevention in the past. So why now? The NFL is trying to distract us from the truth and the failure of the people who failed to be good, ethical leaders.

The people running the NFL are still not getting it right. In fact, they are making things worse.

If my suspicions are true, more truth will come out about what the NFL did and didn’t know. As the truth comes out, credibility will be lost and the institution’s reputation will be further damaged, with a slow erosion of revenue each day the crisis lingers. Some revenue loss will come from the sponsors who pull out. Some revenue loss will come from fans who don’t buy tickets or merchandise.

The NFL must do what all institutions should do from the beginning:

1) Tell the truth

2) Punish not just the players, but the guilty executives as well

3) Announce steps to ensure bad decision-making doesn’t happen again.

Suspending Roger Goodell is still a viable option. It needs to be done swiftly in the name of crisis management and ethics.

3 Ways Your Brand Can Distance Itself from a Team, Athlete or Sport in Crisis

/0 Comments/in /by
Click image to watch

Click image to watch

By Gerard Braud

Brands live and die by sales. Sales associated with a star athlete or team are considered golden by many brands. But what happens in a crisis? What happens when the team loses? What happens when the player is disgraced?

The NFL crisis and their failed crisis management and crisis communications should give every brand a reason to pause and evaluate your association with a team, coach or athlete.

For athletic brands, association with a team, sport or athlete is a must. For many consumer brands or service industry brands however, I have strongly advised my clients to keep their distance. I see no reason for a bank or hospital, for example, to take that leap.

Yes, a winning team wins you a degree of favor. But a losing team is a bad association. There is nothing worse than seeing your logo behind an angry coach after a bad loss. Learn from Radisson Hotels. They quickly realized their logo didn’t need to be behind the owner, coach and players of the Minnesota Vikings as the issues surrounding Adrian Peterson went from being a sideline issue to being in the spotlight.

Be a control freak. You can control paid advertising. You cannot control guilt by association in a crisis. Consult an advertising expert and research not only the benefits you may gain in good times, but also the damage you may sustain to your brand’s reputation and revenue during a crisis.

1) If you do allow your brand to sponsor a team, have a clause that allows you to remove your logo from the post-game interview backdrop when the team loses.

2) Make sure your logo never shows when there is a scandal.

3) Send a marketing or communications employee to travel with the team to set up a backdrop with your logo for good news and a backdrop without your logo when the news is bad.

Don’t let someone else’s crisis and their failed crisis management affect your brand, your reputation and your revenue.

NFL Failed Crisis Management Amid Sponsor Pressure

/0 Comments/in , /by

Braudcast Sept 18 NFLBy Gerard Braud

The NFL’s failed crisis management is hitting them in the wallet. It is hitting teams hard, as players under suspicion of wrong-doing are singled out.

It shows weakness of leadership to not manage a crisis properly from the beginning.

It shows failure of leadership not to communicate a response properly from the onset of the crisis.

It is pitiful that sponsors have to force the NFL to make decisions about this crisis based on hard cash.

A good leader and a strong company would evaluate the potential damage to revenue and reputation at the onset of the crisis, leading them to make the right executive decisions. Then they should implement crisis communication techniques to let the world know that the crisis is being managed.

If you are in public relations, employee communications, or corporate communications, this is a case study you should observe so that these same poor crisis decisions never happen where you work.

NFL Crisis Management and Crisis Communications Double Standard

/0 Comments/in , /by
Why Suspend Goodell? Watch

Why Suspend Goodell? Watch

By Gerard Braud

 

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell missed a crisis management and crisis communications opportunity to end the Ray Rice crisis. Sunday should have been the day Roger Goodell announced to the world that he would be suspending himself for one year. It would have displayed leadership in a crisis. It would have been communications that managed and ended the crisis.

What? Why? Is this the best expert advice that crisis managers and crisis communicators counselors could make?

Consider this — New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton was suspended for one year because even though he didn’t know that his defensive coach was running a bounty program for defensive players. Payton received a one-year suspension because Goodell said that as the head coach, it happened on Payton’s watch. Payton, as the top leader, was held responsible by Goodell

So, many call for Goodell to be fired and Goodell goes into classic executive denial, diversion and potential cover-up about what he knew. The best way for him to end the current crisis would be to suspend himself on the grounds that the Rice incident happened on his watch. If someone within the NFL had video of the punch in the elevator and Goodell didn’t see it, then by default, Goodell is as guilty as Payton.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell

If we learn Goodell did know about the video, or saw the video, and/or was told by Ray Rice about the punch, yet faile
d to sere Rice his harsh penalty until the world saw the punch video, then we have a classic case of leadership failure in a crisis. We have a case of an executive acting one way toward others, yet having different rules for himself. We have a case of an executive who was wishing it would all go away, but who was forced to respond differently when the world learned more.

Crisis management requires good ethics and good ethical decisions. Expert crisis management only happens with the executive’s words and actions are one in the same. Are the executive’s actions congruent with his or her words? When they are, the executive is a leader. When they are not congruent, the executive fails to be a leader.

The more I watch this crisis the more I expect it to get worse. When a crisis is allowed to smolder this long it results only in more damage to reputation and revenue. Experts will tell you that the faster you end the crisis, the faster revenue and reputation are restored.

Leadership in a crisis happens when hard decisions are made quickly. A self-suspension is a great compromise shy of Goodell being fired. If Goodell fails to take a bold step, then his job is one the line, as it should be, for failing at crisis management and crisis communications

Crisis Communications Statements That Say Nothing

/0 Comments/in /by

GW TodayBy Gerard Braud

Leaders are slow to communicate in a crisis, so I get excited when I see an executive initiate some type of crisis communications. However, the example I’m going to show you here, in my expert opinion, does little to effectively communicate. Also, with two potential crises, this executive opts to focus on the lesser of the two and ignores the bigger crisis.

I was contacted by reporter Colleen Murphy with the George Washington Hatchet, the student newspaper at George Washington University. Her initial call was to get my reaction because a past GW president had made a comment on NPR regarding college women being drunk and how that might contribute to them being a victim of sexual assault.

Critics of the past president resented the suggestion that a woman would be anything more than a victim in a sexual assault. (In fairness, if you listen to the full interview for full context you would likely agree with what was actually said and not what people perceive was said.) Sensitive to the negative outcry, the current president decided to issue a statement. However, at the time the president is issuing his statement, a co-ed had just filed a sexual assault complaint after she reported being assaulted in a fraternity house.

GW presidentGW President Steve Knapp writes, “My responsibility as president is to make my own and the university’s position — and the steps the university is actually taking — as clear as I can.” To that, I say bravo.

But read on and see how Knapp’s statement is anything but clear. He also fails to outline any real steps. And, in light of the sexual assault report just filed, notice how Knapp fails to mention the assault in his statement:

“My strongly held position is that sexual assault under any guise and regardless of the circumstances is utterly repugnant and unacceptable. In recent years, we have hired a Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion and a Title IX Coordinator, and we are currently seeking a Coordinator of Sexual Assault Prevention and Student Advocacy. Together with others across the university, including many dedicated faculty members, students, and staff, this team is advancing our efforts to create a university culture in which every member of our community understands that sexual assault must not and will not be tolerated. Our work must focus unambiguously on ensuring that the university is fully supportive of the survivors of such acts and treats appropriately those who are found to have committed them,” Knapp’s statement concludes.

As I told the reporter, this was an excellent time to advance the discussion about assaults. Hiring a new Provost will not stop assaults. Lost from Knapp’s statement is anything that educates female students as to how to prevent an assault. This was a perfect time to give the best three tips for avoiding being a victim. Absent is an attempt to educate male students about what is unacceptable behavior. Lost is the opportunity to set new, strong standards for attacking this problem at GW.

I laugh at the sentence, “Our work must focus unambiguously on ensuring that the university is fully supportive of the survivors of such acts…” because the entire statement is ambiguous.

Some executives and public relations people have a way of saying many words, but failing to effectively communicate. Behold: I give you GW University.