Political Communications from Ford to Obama

Speech given at the Dole Institute of Politics

The University of Kansas,

April 22, 2015

Good afternoon, everyone.

Let me begin by saying what a pleasure it is to be on the University of Kansas campus... and especially to be here at the Dole Institute of Politics.

When traveling across the state of Kansas – and I’ve had the privilege of visiting virtually every city and town in this wonderful state, typically with Senator Dole – I always most looked forward to coming to Lawrence.

Not just because it is a great college town – which it of course is – but also because of its history. Lawrence was founded by the New England Emigrant Aid Society... to foster Free State status for what was then the emerging territory of Kansas.

As a New Englander by birth – and as a member of the Union Club of Boston, formed by some of the very same individuals who financed the Emigrant Aid Society – this town has always resonated for me as a place with a very special and distinct past... and a very promising future.

So it is good to be back.    

My topic, “Political Communications from Ford to Obama”, is obviously a broad one.

And while there might be several ways to approach it, my intent this afternoon is to provide a personal perspective, drawn from my own experiences, including my time with Senator Dole.

My own background prior to going to Washington was as a journalist. I was a newspaper reporter, columnist and editor in Massachusetts... and I later covered the 1976 primaries for a small news service, PNS. 

Working at PNS – a feisty agency with ties to UC Berkeley and the Stanford Research Institute – actually gave me early insight into how technology would shape the future of political reporting.

The rapidly changing role of technology – and its impact on both politicians and the media - will be a recurring theme.

I was heading out to cover the Wisconsin primary – a big event that year for both Democrats and Republicans – when my publisher, Sandy Close, handed me a somewhat compact, but quite heavy, suitcase.

“What’s this?” I asked. “I already have a typewriter.”

“It’s not a typewriter,” she said. “It’s called a Telecopier, a prototype provided by Xerox labs. We want you to use it to file your stories.”

She then proceeded to show me how to use the device. It was all a bit strange – you slotted your piece of paper into a cylinder; shoved a phone handset into a cupped cradle...and then dialed up a receiving number.

This wasn’t the first prototype of a Telecopier. But, as Sandy proudly told me, it was the first one to cut the sending time per page from 12 minutes... to eight. You have to understand that most reporters – excepting AP, UPI and Reuters – phoned in their stories to a copy desk. And it didn’t take four minutes a page.

But I dutifully trundled the thing out to Madison...typed up my stories on my portable typewriter (I wish I could say on an Underwood for you “House of Cards” fans...but it was a lowly Smith-Corona) and then “telecopied” them back to San Francisco.

My fellow reporters thought I was nuts... especially because they had all filed their stories and were heading out to a nearby tavern... while I was still slowly sending my pages.

When I returned to California, Sandy said, “So what did you think?” I told her, “A complete waste of time and effort. That thing will never catch on!”

And that is how I completely misjudged a disruptive technology – called the fax machine.

As you heard in the introduction, my switch from journalism to politics didn’t come with Senator Dole... but with Senator Edward W. Brooke, a Republican from Massachusetts who was the first African-American elected to that body by popular vote.

I was Senator Brooke’s Press Secretary all during 1978...when he was up for re-election, seeking a third term. It was a bruising campaign, made more difficult by the Senator’s decision to seek a “no-fault” divorce from his Italian-American spouse... in a state that was 72% Roman Catholic...and only 12% Republican.

Unfortunately for the Senator, his spouse...and one of his two daughters...did not allow him to go the “no-fault” route...with all the negative publicity that implies. To make a long story short... we lost.

Unless you have been in a political campaign you will probably find this next point hard to believe... but I had given zero thought to what I might do next. Seriously – not one minute.

I flew back to Washington from Boston on the very first flight the day after the election... and found myself the only one in the office at 9 AM.

I sat up front, in the receptionist area, where I could control access and answer the phones.

Not that anyone was calling.

But then the phone did finally ring. It was some guy claiming to be Senator Bob Dole.

I was sure it was actually a friend of mine...who was constantly pranking me by calling and pretending to be Ted Kennedy...Carl Bernstein...Carl Yastrzemski... the Pope, you name it, he could do it. 

And I wasn’t in the mood.

“You’re Bob Dole... and I’m Jimmy Carter,” I said.

And I hung up.

I was feeling pretty good about this... until a few minutes later, when the phone rang again.

It turned out it was Bob Dole... and he was looking to speak with Bob Waite.

Fortunately, since I was at the switchboard... I was able to say, “Yes Senator, let me transfer you right away” and then, after a suitable delay, picked up my own line.

After a short pause (and with a somewhat disguised voice) I took the call.  After some brief pleasantries the Senator said he wanted me to come by his office... to talk about possibly becoming his press secretary.    

And that, in short, is how I came to join the office of Senator Dole.

Brooke and Dole had worked jointly on some legislation... thus we had held a couple of joint press conferences... and Senator Dole had apparently seen something in me.

I, in turn, had gained great respect for the Senator... and also had established a positive working relationship with his acting Press Secretary, my good friend Bill Kats, Jr.

In the end, the move to Senator Dole seemed to make perfect sense, in part because both Senators – Brooke and Dole – were national figures...and I already knew many in the national media.

Senator Dole also had the foresight to hire my Brooke colleague, Rick Smith – now better known as the great biographer and historian Richard Norton Smith – as speech writer.

So here we are in January, 1978.

From a politician’s perspective – from Bob Dole’s perspective – and from a press secretary’s perspective - what did the media environment look like?

First of all, in those days there was extensive state media coverage...coming out of Washington bureaus.

For example, David Bartels represented the Wichita Eagle-Beacon. Ken Peterson did the same for the Topeka Capital Journal.

Jean Christensen covered the Senator for the Harris Newspapers across the state.

And Joe Lastilic and Kathy Patterson did the same for the Kansas City Star.

These folks were looking for what mattered to Kansans.

This was not different from what I had experienced with Brooke, where not only the Boston Globe and Boston Herald...  but also the Lowell Sun, the Quincy Patriot Ledger, the Berkshire Eagle, plus the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor… all had bureaus.

In other words, there were a lot of local eyes on you.

On the electronic side, the world was a simpler place. There were of course the three major television networks. There was also Mutual Radio...and a late night guy named Larry King.

And if you were a national politician, the networks were a big deal. Getting on the evening news...or Meet the Press, Issues and Answers or Face the Nation...was a coup.

But just as important, nationally, were magazines – Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report.

There were as yet no cable news networks – the first, Ted Turner’s CNN, was still a year away.

The mails were an important media channel – press releases were of course hand-carried to the Senate Press Gallery to be picked up by the wire services and other accredited members... but we also mailed releases to over 100 weekly newspapers and trade publications back in the state.

Senators also recorded radio messages and interviews... and mailed those back to their states as well. 

There was no e-mail... so virtually all contact with the media was by telephone or face-to-face.

This face-to-face aspect was I think critical – it somewhat softened the adversarial nature of media – politician and media – press secretary relations. As wonderful as e-mail is, it cannot fully substitute for in-person conversation or even a chat on the telephone in terms of providing nuance. A smiley face can never quite match an actual human smile... or a chuckle.

In 1979 we were in a strange, in-between period for media – politician relations.

There of course had been Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. Investigative reporting was all the rage. Everyone wanted to be the next Woodward or Bernstein.

But there was still an adherence by most media to the concept of presenting information in a manner that did not betray bias.

Yes, everyone knew that Newsweek tended to be more liberal than U.S. News & World Report...and that the New York Times was more liberal than the San Diego Union.

We could diverge here and have a great academic discussion about whether or not there is – or ever was - any such thing as “unbiased” reporting... or whether that is even possible.

But, by and large, news reporting of the day tended to be more or less straight up... with opinions corralled in editorials, op-eds or by-lined articles labeled “analysis”.

There was also an unspoken but fairly clearly defined line between what was public and what was private.

We all know today that the press turned a blind eye to John Kennedy’s indiscretions. And Kennedy was not unique in that regard.

In some ways the expression, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas”... was just an appropriation of “What Happens in Washington, stays in Washington.”

Mainstream media rarely crossed the line into the private lives of officials... unless the official – and here I am thinking particularly of Henry Kissinger – wanted them to.

Or if they were complete idiots – one thinks of House Ways and Means Chairman Wilber Mills of Arkansas, who famously – and very publicly, given that the police were present - cavorted with a rental date, Fanne Foxe, and dove into the Tidal Basin.

But, by and large, private lives stayed private – at least up until Gary Hart’s “Monkey Business”/Donna Rice escapade in 1987.

 Given the rancor between political parties today, there seems to be a tendency to see the Dole years of the 1970’s and 1980’s as a time of great bipartisan cooperation... and a golden age for political reporting. 

And it is true that there was notable cooperation across the aisles where political agendas allowed.

Examples, some of which predated the 70’s, included Dole – McGovern on food stamps... Brooke – Pell on higher education grants... and Ted Kennedy and several Republicans on health-related legislation.

And the quality of political reporting was certainly high. Print journalists like Jack Germond, David Broder and Mary McGrory were universally respected... as were broadcasters like Kansan Jim Lerner and his PBS co-host, Robin MacNeil.

Republicans, Democrats and media mixed pretty freely socially in those days. For example, I would occasionally have a drink after work with Tom Southwick, Kennedy’s press secretary... and if a Boston Globe reporter wandered over... that was fine.

I even played bridge in a foursome that included two reporters... and Jimmy Carter’s assistant press secretary.

The ethos was that you might work hard professionally during the day - even at loggerheads - but could lay down your swords and break bread in the evening or on a weekend.

But things could get pretty partisan during the day.

For a period of time in 1979 and early 1980 I was a part of a group of Republican press secretaries – which included Senator Howard Baker’s Tom Griscom and Senator Bill Roth’s Jim Brady – that met on Monday’s to co-ordinate media strategy for the weeks ahead.

Our primary purpose was to go after the Carter Administration, issue by issue. Which we did –hard - on everything from agricultural policy to the treatment of Soviet Jews.

And sometimes our competitive spirit bordered on the ridiculous. For example, the Dole press office and the Kennedy press office constantly vied to see who could get their boss quoted most by the media.

We started escalating the number of press releases we would put out... until we in the Dole office released nine in one day, which the press gallery informed us was an all-time record. Kennedy, of course, matched the number a few days later. Then the head of the gallery called both our offices... and said, “For God’s sake, guys, stop this madness”. So we called a truce.

Just for the record, our nine releases got better pick-up than Kennedy’s.

As I mentioned earlier, the first major shift in media political coverage came with the advent of CNN, the all-news cable channel.

The three-network monopoly, with its half-hour format and local affiliate news broadcasts, was broken by an upstart – Turner - who thought he could run news 24/7.

Well, for a nine-press release office like ours, this was like the Golden Coral coming to town – all you can eat journalism.

At almost the same time a fellow by the name of Michael Bloomberg...started a high-cost news service using subscription computer terminals... that he immodestly called “Bloomberg”. And a year later US Today was launched.

Each in its own way was a forerunner in the way news was to be gathered and distributed. And in each instance, technology was the enabler.

Satellites allowed CNN to broadcast almost immediately from virtually any corner of the Globe. Computers and high-speed connections allowed Bloomberg to transmit mountains of financial data instantaneously. And Gannett, using similar technologies, was able to establish regional printing plants to allow for the distribution of a truly national newspaper.

The Wall Street Journal began doing much the same.

At this time traditional print journalism began what started as slow decline, due to rising newsprint costs and other factors, including increasing competition for advertising revenues from broadcast.

Newspaper owners in many markets hoped to cut their way to a more healthy bottom line.

Often the early victims in cost-cutting efforts were foreign and domestic newspaper bureaus, including Washington bureaus.

Some shrank; some were folded into larger ones run by Knight-Ridder, Gannett and other chains; others disappeared entirely, replaced solely by wire service reports.

The Kansas City Star, to use one example, had been for many years employee-owned. In 1977, the paper was sold to Knight-Ridder.

It’s three-person D.C. bureau was allowed to continue for a number of years… but ultimately was folded into Knight-Ridder’s, bureau, arguably losing both dedicated manpower and focus.

In reaching out to a number of journalists to prepare for this talk, the demise of the mid-sized Washington bureau was cited by many as one definitive trend that helped change the media-politician dynamic.

One example brought up by Cheryl Arvidson, legendary reporter for UPI, Cox News Service and the Dallas Times-Herald, was the Louisville Courier-Journal, once one of the most respected and honored newspapers in the country.

Today, despite the fact that the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, and one of the most important potential candidates in 2016, Rand Paul, are from Kentucky… the paper maintains no DC bureau.

But, as I said, this erosion in the ‘80’s was relatively gradual. Unless you were a journalist – or a press secretary or a politician – it may not have even been noticeable.

A second trend that began about this same time, according to Joan Mckinney, former Deputy Director of the Senate Press Gallery, was a decline in topic-specific reporters.

There had been individuals who solely covered agriculture… or defense…or tax.

According to McKinney – who had been a respected reporter herself as well as Press Secretary to Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina – by moving away from a focus on subject matter… to more general reporting, the result was often to chronicle who was winning or losing politically… rather than on the specifics of a bill…or its long-term policy implications.

Things also shifted on the electronic side, beginning with radio.

Radio had always had its share of politically opinionated commentators… going back to Detroit’s Father Coughlin in the 1930’s and, in the 70’s, people like Boston’s Avi Nelson.

But in many respects 1988 was a watershed – for that was the year Rush Limbaugh began broadcasting to a national audience out of WABC in New York.

It wasn’t just that Limbaugh was unapologetically conservative. He was also more than willing to call out those who were not. Citing a perceived liberal bias in mainstream journalism… he created an alternative universe for the like-minded. In marketing-speak, he segmented the market, carving out a demographic, giving them a voice and a home.

He spawned a host of imitators. But more significantly, he inspired a similar approach in the world of cable TV. Rupert Murdoch sensed there was an appetite for a right-of-center approach… and in 1996 launched Fox News.

This of course later brought us MSNBC, covering off the left-of-center segment.

In reality, CNN – and the networks – got squeezed from both sides. What we have ended up with is the broadcast equivalent of gated communities, gathering places for the like-minded.

This is typically helpful for politicians, in the sense that it allows them to select access to a broadcast audience that more closely matches up with their base, be it right of center or left of center. It also means they are more likely to get a more sympathetic line of questioning from hosts.

And it means they can energize that base…for purposes of re-election…a run for higher office…or around a particular piece of legislation.

Of course the other big technology shift that began to be felt in the 90’s… and accelerated after 2000… was the rise of the internet. The initial manifestation was e-mail.

It may be hard to believe today, but most media so distrusted e-mail in the beginning that they refused to engage in an “on the record” dialogue using the medium.

You could use it for initial contact… but the interview had to be conducted over the phone or in person.

When you think about it, however, that makes a certain kind of sense. E-mail gives the subject – the politician and/or his or her press aide – a far greater opportunity to shape the message. They can respond on their own time schedule, often after fact-checking and editing. In effect, you have the opportunity to put the reporter on “pause”.

By the time media use of e-mail came about I was in the corporate world, running a large communications, government relations and marketing function. I loved e-mail for the same reasons politicians and press secretaries did – it avoided foot-in-the mouth syndrome.

Over time, more and more media outlets came to accept e-mail communications as a legitimate interview format. Many – including the New York Times- still make mention that the response came via e-mail.

Many others do not.

But of course e-mail was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the electronic revolution.

Soon came the blackberry, with its encrypted PIN messaging; smart phones, including the Apple iPhone and similar devices; and a host of applications, from Face book, to twitter, to Instagram, that could reach out over the established media and connect directly with the public.

For politicians, connecting directly with the public, without the filter of professional journalists, had always seemed attractive.

Franklin Roosevelt, for example, frustrated by the Republican editorial slant fostered by conservative publishers in the 1930’s, instituted his radio “Fireside Chats” to reach over them, into people’s homes.

Ronald Reagan did much the same in the 1980’s with his Oval Office televised appeals to voters to put pressure on Congress.

But the biggest disruptive game-changer in terms of establishing direct contact with desired audiences has been the advent of social media, be it Face book, twitter or Instagram.

The use of social media over the past 15 years has revolutionized everything from politics… to law enforcement.

The Obama campaign in 2008 is a good case in point. As a first-term Senator, his candidacy for the Democratic nomination initially attracted only modest attention from mainstream media.

Hillary Clinton was widely seen as almost inevitable. But beneath the surface, a very different campaign was unfolding – one that by election day put the Obama team in direct contact with five million Americans…using 15 separate social media platforms.

This didn’t happen by accident. In February, 2007, Barack Obama met with Mark Andreessen, one of the founders of Netscape and a board member of Face book, at San Francisco International Airport. That conversation…and the subsequent recruitment of net-savvy individuals…led to the creation of what became a fund-raising and volunteer-recruiting juggernaut.

Al Gore may have claimed to have invented the internet…but Obama and the techno-team he attracted turned it into a formidable political weapon.

By the time he got to the White House he didn’t just have a political base – he had, in the words of the late New York Times reporter David Carr, “a database of millions who could be engaged and mobilized almost instantly.”

Obama wasn’t the first to turn the internet to his advantage. Howard Dean, for example, in 2004 effectively harnessed the new medium for small donation fundraising.

But Obama was the first to pull it all together.

This does not mean that mainstream media was unimportant to Obama’s ultimate victory. Of course it was. But in the early days the Obama campaign had something of a stealth quality.

They wanted to be included in the conversation by journalists… but they were also happy to have Hillary perceived as the formidable front-runner…while they quietly built their web-based infrastructure.

So it is no wonder that on April 12 of this year…Hillary decided to announce her candidacy for the Democratic nomination on her web site with a video and via twitter… and not to a room full of journalists.

An unfiltered message direct to the base… and no pesky questions from reporters.

Of course the ubiquitous and all-pervasive nature of technology today has also blurred the lines between media and the general public.

Is the person who captures compelling photos or video images of significant events on their cell phone – something that gets published or aired – a journalist?  What about a blogger who writes about politics? Is The Daily Show comedy… or journalism? And does the answer change if you learn that for a sizable portion of American Millennials… it is their primary source of news?

Much as there are today far fewer books published by established publishing houses… but many more books, fiction and non-fiction, published overall, thanks to the ease of self-publishing… there are also more people calling themselves journalists out there.

Some work for established web-based outlets like Politico… RealClearPolitics… Slate or Huffington Post. But many thousands of others work for on-line publications you’ve probably never heard of… or they have stand-alone, narrow-cast blogs.

Many journalists of my generation call this largely uncurated world of writers and bloggers chaos. My children’s generation calls it citizen journalism…and a healthy sign that participatory democracy is well and alive.

For politicians and their media handlers, it all presents a formidable challenge. How do you monitor all of this? How do you control the narrative? When do you respond to a blogger?

My daughter, who is currently at the London School of Economics obtaining a Masters in Global Media, a few summers ago worked in the Social Media unit at TD bank, one of North America’s largest financial organizations. She was one of eight university students solely dedicated to managing the bank’s Face book page, its LinkedIn and twitter accounts – and for monitoring mentions of the company by on-line bloggers.

What they did was a blend of marketing and communications activity – work that was considered strategic to the firm’s success – in a unit didn’t even exist a couple of years earlier.

Politicians, to be successful, need to make similar strategic adjustments.

I mentioned The Senate Press Gallery – where we in Dole’s office used to send our press releases in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. In those days there were 2,600 credentialed journalists. Today there are 6,500.

Political journalism has not died. It has morphed.

We got excited when we put out nine press releases in one day. Today a politician can put out as many tweets in an hour.

The reality today is that politicians have both an easier and more difficult task when it comes to dealing with the media.

Easier, in the sense that they pick and choose the outlets that are more favorable to their ideology and point of view.

More difficult, because with the advent of cell phone cameras and on-line forums and blogs, virtually everyone they meet might be a photographer or journalist.

Think back to the 2012 campaign, where a waiter at a closed-door Romney event recorded his remarks about the “47 percent”.

Nothing today is private. “Off the record” is a quaint expression from the last century.

When I look at press operations for politicians today, I do not envy their task in trying to manage such a fractious media landscape…and the many technologies and applications designed to connect politicians directly with voters.

It goes way beyond trying to operate a telecopier!

But I see great opportunity amid the challenges.

The sometimes adversarial relationship between media and politicians is vital to our democracy. And greater citizen participation in the process has the potential to increase engagement.

This is not new – Edmund Burke used the term “Fourth Estate” in a 1787 parliamentary  debate, arguing that the press should be allowed to cover House of Commons sessions.

Prior to that, the term “Four Estate” had been used to describe the common man.

In many ways what is going on today is in effect a merging of those two meanings. But the basic function of the fourth estate – to question the motives and activities of our public leaders – will remains the same.

And that’s a good thing.

Thank you.

WAITE-O-GRAM (RELEASE 233.0)

SMOOTH AS (BROKEN) GLASS

CIBC's annual report arrived in the mail this week. You have to understand, I greet the arrival of an annual report much as my grandfather greeted the arrival of the Sears catalogue. While many consider these corporate reports the ugly step-sister of the publishing world, I see the beauty of corporate speak in all of its glory. To wit, CIBC Board Chair Charles Sirois penned these words: "One of the most important accomplishments for your Board in 2014 was managing the succession process for CIBC's CEO." Hmm. There is no question that the OUTCOME was well managed - new CIBC CEO Victor Dodig is a superb executive who deserved promotion - but the PROCESS was not a thing of beauty. Without pointing fingers - difficult to do anyway in a non-visual column - my impression is that Mr. Sirois unnecessarily muddied the succession waters by indicating at one point that the Board might look outside for a new CEO. To quote my old IBM boss John Thompson, himself a former bank chair (TD), "you don't look outside unless there is a crisis." Thanks to Gerry McCaughey's strong hand over his nine-year tenure, the word "crisis" had been all but erased from the CIBC vocabulary. And, as they say, all's well that ends well.

 

LAME DUCK OR DEAD DUCK?

With all of the early attention paid to the 2016 US presidential election and the October Canadian vote, the upcoming UK election in May is getting scant attention on this side of the pond. Yet it will obviously reverberate here - British involvement in the ISIS conflict; their relationship with the EU; their position regarding Putin's aggressive stance in the Baltics and the Ukraine - all have important implications. This week, in what I took to be a hint of desperation, David Cameron, Conservative leader of the governing coalition, announced that, if returned to power, this would be his last term. But why? I don't recall UCLA's John Wooden announcing that if they won another NCAA basketball championship...that would be it. Jean Chretien - a canny and vastly under appreciated Canadian Prime Minister - never did the same (much to the chagrin of Paul Martin.) And Cameron is only 48. When I was in England a couple of weeks ago there was definitely a sense that the UK election will be very close - possibly headed to another coalition. By telling the British voter that this will be his last dance, he runs a very real risk of being asked to step away entirely.

 

SINCE YOU ASKED...

On of the challenges of being a "trusted advisor" (as my website touts me) is that you have to accept the reality that your advice will not be taken. And then you have to pick yourself up and offer it again - as honestly and clearly as you can. Back in 1995, I was one of many individuals asked to weigh in on whether or not Bob Dole should make a run for the presidency in '96 vs. Bill Clinton. I was one of the very few who answered "no". My view was that he was an exceptionally strong and effective Senate Leader; a run for the presidency carried high risk, given the strength of the economy; he could better serve the nation - and his own legacy - by taking a pass. In retrospect I think my advice was sound - but also that Dole's decision to run was the right one for him. This is a man who never shied away from a fight, or long odds. He needed enter the fray...and did. That deserves respect. For my part, the lesson was to continue to offer an unvarnished, honest opinion - but always remember to respect the individual who actually has to enter the arena.

 

PR NIGHTMARE

The recent tragic loss of 150 souls on a Germanwings flight in France has understandably dominated the news of late. While air travel claims relatively few lives on a statistical basis, it captures the public's attention, in part because air travel is, let's face it, intuitively unnatural. Every time you take off you are - surprise! - a human, airborne. Sure, there is the magic of lift and wing design, thrust and all that - but for most of us it is getting aloft is as close to a miracle as we expect to get. So the media, including CNN, FOX, the BBC and CBC, are all over this, knowing we are fully engaged in the very drama and humanity of the situation. And I will say this - Lufthansa, the owner of Germanwings, has done an exemplary job of dealing with the scrutiny.  They did all of the right things in terms of dealing with the victims families and friends; their CEO was front and center from day one; they didn't try to slip punches in terms of taking responsibility. Yes, they will be criticised for not knowing more about the co-pilot's medical and psychological state (despite some very stringent privacy laws). And they will be questioned regarding not having adopted the two-person-in-the-cockpit protocol. But in terms of responsiveness and candor, they have done well. No surprise there from my perspective - when I was at CAE and we had them as a flight simulator customer, they were far and away among the top two or three airlines in the world in terms of professionalism. They'll get through this. And if you compare their communications response to that of Malaysian Airlines - enough said.

EUPHEMISM DEPARTMENT, PLEASE

Although fortunately without a fatal outcome, Sunday night's crash of an Air Canada A320 in Halifax left a little to be desired on the communications front. Some bright light spokesperson at Air Canada decided to call it a "hard landing". Which sounded like a minor bump ... until you saw pictures of the damaged aircraft, learned that the plane took down a power line on final approach and was ripped underneath by the antenna array as if by a can opener. When passengers later learned of Air Canada's "hard landing" characterization they were stunned - and they were not afraid to tell reporters that it was what it was... a crash.

ARE CANADIANS BAD TIPPERS?

I received a call from a Buffalo News reporter this past week - he had seen a story I'd done for Huffington Post awhile back on tipping at restaurants. "Are Canadians poor tippers?" he asked. I said all I could go on was personal observation, as well as feedback over the years from wait staff and hospitality folks in places like Florida, Arizona, California and Hawaii (where I had helped organize corporate events for IBM). And my observation was that, on average, Canadian do tip less than their American counterparts, perhaps on average 5% less. "Why do you think that is?", he followed up.  Well, I mused, it may be because wait staff in Ontario, at least, actually get paid minimum wage. Or it may be that our dollar is chronically weak against the U.S. dollar. Or maybe it was the influence of our Scotch-Irish forefathers. (I threw the last one in just to confuse the guy, not as an ethnic slur.) Anyway, the piece is schedule to come out the day the Toronto Maple Leafs play the Buffalo Sabres in Buffalo. So if you're going to the game - and grabbing some wings before or after - leave a big tip and prove I had no idea what I was talking about! 

 

'PUSH GROUND, PLEASE'

My spousal unit, Karen Shigeishi-Waite, retires this week after 27 years with OTIS Elevator Canada, most recently as CFO. I am not happy about this. You have to understand that while she was working, she was too busy to pay all that much attention to what I was doing. She was often traveling or, when home, working long into the night. She was, in many was, the model for the book "I don't Know How She Does It" (which chronicles the hopelessly busy life of professional women trying to juggle family and career). The reality is that what I was really doing, when I wasn't away myself traveling on business, was watching Boston Red Sox or University of Wisconsin games on TV deep in the bowels of our home.  Or writing articles for Huffington Post and WAITE-O-GRAMS. She of course thought I was helping the children with homework...shoveling the driveway...or preparing dinner (thank God for frozen dinners!) Anyway, this week the gig is up. She will find that I am not helping the kids with their homework, but instead that that I am watching the Badgers in the NCAA Final Four... and the Red Sox's opening day. And she'll finally find out that the kids left for university years ago... 

AND FINALLY...

 

Go Badgers!

 

(The opinions expressed are solely those of the author, who is responsible for any errors, omissions or typos. The sharp-eyed reader will recall that Bob Dole declared in 1996 that he would only serve one term if elected - I confess I was too cowardly to offer an opinion as to whether or not this was a good idea. Every "trusted advisor" has his or her limits. With regard to Karen's retirement plans, she says she will be paying more attention to Waite + Co. This cannot be good. Finally, any reference to the CIBC annual report, the Sears catalogue and my grandfather should not be carried too far. They had indoor plumbing.)  

WAITE-O-GRAM (RELEASE 232.0)

ED BROOKE: BOSS; MENTOR; FRIEND

They laid Senator Edward W. Brooke to rest this past week in Arlington National Cemetery. For those under the age of thirty-five, or those who do not follow American politics, neither the name nor the place of burial will probably mean much. But for those of us who worked for him, the opportunity to pay our final respects at the National Cathedral and then march in a light rain behind the horse-drawn cassion bearing his casket to his final hilltop resting place was deeply moving, yet also joyous. Deeply moving, because it was a reminder of the finite nature of the time apportioned to us all. Joyous, because Ed Brooke reminded us of how far one determined individual can go during the course of that journey. And he was truly a unique individual - or, in the words of District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a man who "invented himself". Born in 1919 in a segregated Washington, D.C., he had little choice but to invent both himself and his future - because there were no prototypes then for a black man seeking by popular vote to enter an all white club called the U.S. Senate. If you'd like a sense of his journey and accomplishments, read on here: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/10/former-senator-edward-brooke-remembered-trailblazer/7v0jHwniEMYPRSHz7hDdDM/story.html

 

PICK YOUR BOSS WISELY

From time to time I am called upon to speak to students, professional groups or other gatherings. Often during the question and answer period I am asked if I have any career advice. Invariably I say "pick your CEO wisely". The students, especially, find that a strange and even humorous response. But I am only half kidding. I have been fortunate enough to have had some extraordinary bosses over the course of my career, starting with Massachusetts newspaper publisher Bill Wasserman and ending with Moya Greene, CEO of Canada Post. In between were individuals like Sandy Close at Pacific News Service; Senator Bob Dole; Jerry terHorst at Ford Motor Company; Ralph Pfeiffer, John Thompson and Bill Etherington at IBM; John Caldwell and Derek Burney at CAE; and John Hunkin at CIBC. None were perfect; but all made me better (or at least less imperfect.) Losing a boss is a strange phenomenon. To some degree, at the height of their powers, they appear from a distance to be almost immortal, (even if, up close, they often are just as human and frail as the rest of us.) When they die, our anchor drags a bit. I have been fortunate thus far - I have only lost three former bosses, IBM World Trade CEO Ralph Pfeiffer; Jerry terHorst at Ford and Senator Brooke. But the void created is profound. Much as with parents that you never got around to thanking for all they did for you, you realise you never quite expressed fully the gratitude you felt for them having given you an opportunity. 

PICK YOUR LEGACY WISELY

Four years ago I stepped away from the corporate realm and began my own company. Drawing on my experience working with government leaders and CEOs, I work with Board Chairs, CEOs and soon-to-be CEOs. Some of the work involves communications, including major speeches, board presentations and the like. But a significant portion relates to coaching incoming CEOs and transition planning and execution. One of the challenges in that line of work is getting the individuals to look beyond the immediate job ahead of them - making the numbers quarter by quarter, year by year - to take in the longer horizon. I ask them questions like "What do you want to be remembered for?" or even "What would you like them to say about you in your obituary?" Questions like these have probably cost me a few clients... but most, after being initially taken aback, begin to reflect. The truth is, most of us want to be well regarded...if not by the general public...at least by family and friends. And not just for record earnings... or raising a dividend. So important do I view this ability to project oneself into the future for a new or incoming CEO that I sometimes partner with a former IBM colleague, Jim Dryburgh, head of a company called Balanced Worklife, to put the individual through an intense two-day session to help them delve into these bigger questions. While many initially view this opportunity as the equivalent of a dental appointment, virtually all are appreciative afterwards.

LEGACIES BIG OR SMALL

Senator Brooke left towering legacies in several areas. He paved the way for the election of subsequent African-Americans, including Barack Obama. He was a strong advocate for women's rights, including a woman's right to choose. He was a towering figure in the housing sector. And, less well known perhaps, he was influential in getting enough bipartisan Republican votes lined up to get the Panama Canal treaty passed in 1978... and instrumental (thanks to quiet a visit to Salt Lake City) in getting the Church of Latter Day Saints to change their position regarding racial equality.  Bob Dole without a doubt will leave a legacy for his tireless advocacy for the disabled; for his efforts (with Senator George McGovern) to address nutritional issues on behalf of the poor and children; and for his ability to place social security on a firmer footing. But you need not be a politician to leave a legacy. Derek Burney was a good CEO... but he will likely be more remembered for his tireless advocacy for a strong and vibrant Canada. Moya Greene revolutionized both Canada Post and the Royal Mail... but may well be ultimately remembered for bringing the issue of mental health to public attention... well before anyone else did. Nor, for that matter, do you need to be a CEO. Each of us can ask ourselves the legacy question. Each can draft up our obituary... and upon doing so, decide if that, indeed, is how we'd like to be remembered.

ON A LIGHTER NOTE...

One of the first speakers at Brooke's service was Secretary of State John Kerry, himself a former Massachusetts Senator. He began his remarks by saying, "Cast your mind back fifty years. Imagine a room... and in it are the leading Massachusetts political figures of the day... Kennedy; O'Neill; McCormick; Volpe; Brooke. One figure stands out - the courageous representative of an embattled minority. Alone; undaunted... Ed Brooke... the only Episcopalian." The nearly packed cathedral laughed as one.

(The views expressed in this missive are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Waite + Co. or its employees or directors. Any errors, omissions or misstatements are the responsibility of the author. You are not required to write your own obituary, but if you do, please do not leave it lying around as it may be disquieting to employees and family members.)  

WAITE-O-GRAM (RELEASE 231.0)

YOU HAVE TO LOVE THE GULF STREAM

Who would have thought that traveling to London, England, would bring relief from North America's unrelenting winter. But trust me, we were there for six days recently and temperatures were in the 50's (12 - 14 C) during the day, a far cry from the minus whatever of Ottawa, Toronto or Boston. This despite the fact that London is a good 400 km (or about 250 miles) closer to the North Pole than to Ottawa. Not only was it (mostly) sunny, but the crocuses were in bloom!  This is all apparently due to the Gulf Stream. Or the hot air emanating from Parliament.

PUTTING HER STAMP ON THE ROYAL MAIL

Our primary mission was visiting daughter Emily, who is undertaking graduate studies at the London School of Economics. But we (my long-suffering spousal unit, Karen, and myself) used the opportunity to catch up with old friends and colleagues, including my former Canada Post boss Moya Greene. It has been almost five years since Moya left Ottawa to become the first woman and non-Brit to head up the world's oldest postal administration and I can report she is in fine fettle. As she should be - she successfully navigated the Royal Mail to the firmer shore of privatization and has brought the venerable institution into the 21st century. Canada seems to be engineering a kind of take-over of the UK by stealth - not only is Moya heading up the Royal Mail, but former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney is now heading up the Bank of England, to most good reviews. Perhaps Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper should consider jumping the pond and giving a go at heading up the UK Conservative Party. He might make people happy on both sides of the Atlantic...

I'LL HAVE 400 CASES YOUR 1926 CHATEAU NEUF DE PAPE

One of the stranger experiences we had on this trip involved staying at one of the Colleges at Cambridge. I cannot tell you which college. I cannot tell you which Fellow we were visiting. What I can tell you is that we got to dine at the "high table" and stay overnight in the "Old Guest Room", under a canopy bed and surrounded by enough dark paneling to outfit a major law firm. It was all very English, in a 13th century kind of way. Our host whispered a lot, as pretty much everything to do with the Fellows is secret. To my mind the best secret is that the Fellows are able to buy wine, port and champagne from the College's ample cellars at "cost plus 20%". Specifically, at cost in the year of purchase - be it 1977, 1968, 1922...whatever. Is this not the best academic perk ever? My Alma mater is the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Sure, the local beer is on tap...and the cheddar cheese is sharp...but the prices are sadly contemporary.

GLACIAL - EXCEPT GLACIERS MOVE FASTER

Executive recruiting firm Rosenzweig & Company have just released their annual "Report on Woman at the Top Levels of Corporate Canada" - and the findings are sobering (much needed after that night at Cambridge). Women today occupy precisely 8.5% of the so-called "named executive" positions at Canada's top 100 publicly traded companies. There are eight female CEO's. The good news, I suppose, is that a bit of progress has been made in the ten years since Jay Rosenzweig began the survey - the starting number back then was 4.6%. But seriously, at this rate parity will come when - 2045? Doesn't anybody know that our daughter Emily (and hundreds like her) are on the march?

CHANGING OF THE GUARD

Like many persons of a certain age, I find myself attending an inordinate number of retirement events of late. Given that part of my career was spent at CIBC, in recent weeks two were associated with that institution - one for Tom Woods, the other for Richard Venn. Tom, as many will remember, was CFO at CIBC during some challenging time and was a frequent spokesperson for the bank on BNN (often interviewed by the endlessly curious Howard Green.) Richard, a Vice Chair at World Markets, was more of a rain-maker type - and perhaps the most civic- and philanthropic-minded individual I have ever had the pleasure to work with. These events can be a little bitter-sweet - retirement evokes mixed emotions - but what struck me was the inclusiveness of the events. Current CIBC colleagues and former and departed co-workers were invited and the events had a reunion quality to them. A highlight, at least for me, was a video message honoring Richard Venn from former CIBCer Mike Petersen, who now heads up TD's U.S. operations. It was a classy moment.

A FOND FAREWELL

As some of you may recall, I served as press secretary to Senator Edward W. Brooke, the first African American elected to the U/S. Senate. Brooke, if you can believe it, was a liberal Republican - although that might be less surprising if I add that he was from Massachusetts. Senator Brooke passed away recently at age 95 and I will be heading down to his memorial service, to be held at the National Cathedral, in less than two weeks. He and I kept in touch over the years. Perhaps the most interesting conversation we had came a couple of years ago when he asked me if I had "heard all of this nonsense in the media" about his having had an affair with Barbara Walters (which she revealed in a tell-all book). I said I had, but that the Canadian media pretty much was ignoring it. Then I said, "By the way, I am glad it came out". Silence at the other end...then, "What do you mean, Bob?" And I said, "Because it is one fewer secret that I have to carry to my grave!" And he laughed. Such is the strange bond between press secretaries and Senators...he was a great, ground-breaking American political figure, one of a kind.

SPEAKING OF SENATORS...

If any of you happen to be in Lawrence, Kansas, on Wednesday, April 22, I will be delivering a lecture at the Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas. The topic is the changing role of the media from Gerald Ford to Obama... and no, I haven't written it yet. I am hoping daughter Emily will make that her dissertation topic at LSE...and I can just read what she has written!

(The views expressed are entirely those of the author. Please feel free to cascade this missive to those whom you feel might enjoy it. If you do not wish to receive these, please reply saying so. But do so kindly - the author is very sensitive, especially after having consumed a bottle of vintage champagne; a 1967 Chateau Neuf de Pape and a very robust 1973 Ware's Ruby Port. Any reference to Barbara Walters was purely unintentional.)       

A Canadian Mount Rushmore?

Keystone, SD—As I stare up at Mount Rushmore – and the much larger-than-life visages of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt—I can’t help but wonder why Americans can get away with this kind of megalomania, while we in Canada seem to be resigned to making do with the Wawa Goose…and the aptly-named New Brunswick Tidal Bore.

Yes, there is the whole American Exceptionalism thing. But let’s be serious-- is Canada no less exceptional? Do we not deserve our own Mount Rushmore? Of course we do! We have been diffident and modest far too long. But getting over that is the easy part. Assuming we take the bold step of celebrating our own heroes, who, exactly, should we enshrine in granite?

We could go the American route and chisel politicians into a mountainside (or at least the ones who haven’t chiselled us). If we look at Prime Ministers, for example, we could consider using the 2011 ranking by Mclean’s magazine as a guide, which placed Wilfrid Laurier #1, followed by John A. Macdonald, William Lyon Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson.

Yes, there are issues with this lineup. Some would say there are too many Liberals. Japanese Canadians would have issues with Mackenzie King, given that he interred thousands of them against all reason. Others would say that to do John A. Macdonald justice we would need to find a mountain with pink granite. More to the point, many would say that, unlike the United States, with their Presidential Libraries and billion dollar Air Force One, we do not present our leaders as modern-day Emperors.

But if not Prime Ministers, whom? We could look to the 2004 CBC Greatest Canadian line-up. In rank order, the top four finishers were Tommy Douglas, Terry Fox, Pierre Trudeau and Sir Frederick Banting. Not a bad list (although, due to Trudeau, it might limit us to mountains in central Canada). But it does, like the Prime Minister’s list, seem to be quite obviously lacking in a variety of ways, including gender diversity.  

If you look at the CBC Greatest Canadian rankings, the top three women, in order of preference, were Shania Twain, Laura Secord…and Pamela Anderson. And no, I am not going to make a cheap comment about the latter – because you are already thinking it.

What about Jack Layton…or Roberta Bondar…or Chris Hatfield?

I asked my spousal unit, Karen Shigeishi-Waite, for her views. Her choices? Margaret Atwood, Carol Shields, Jann Arden…and John Candy. And, again, I will make no comment regarding the need for a bigger mountain. But those are certainly interesting nominees.

When I asked a close American friend with Canadian family ties, Cheryl Arvidson, for her opinion, she offered up Joni Mitchell and Neil Young. For my part, I’d like to see Tecumseh, Fergie Jenkins, Chantal Hebert… and whoever approved my citizenship papers when I immigrated to Canada.

So what do you think? Which four individuals do you think most deserving? Or do you think a Mount Rushmore-like imitation violates Canadian values of modesty and rectitude? And if you have a mountain (and a semi-insane sculptor like Gutzon Borglun) to donate to the cause, please let me know.