The evening of June 15 was heralded as the night that the business community united behind Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr. Some of the long lists of hosts and organizers were so excited that they kept sending the invitation to the event to their friends and to local media. After a divisive election, would the press cover such a positive event around Johnson?
But unbeknownst to the media, the organizers of the event voted to bar any cameras from the event at the University Club. The official excuse was that it was a fundraising event and โprivateิbut they didnโt bother to tell that to all the media getting the e-mail invitation.
So TV stations and newspapers sent people with cameras to cover this positive event. To us, the idea of getting images of business people who had supported Johnsonโs opponent now raising a glass to him was exciting. It was the boost that Jackson needed. Readers need those images.
But when the photographers arrived downtown, they were summarily barred from the event, even though print reporters were allowed in. And then the defensiveness went into overdrive: Some of the same people who complain about the media always covering negatives suddenly were saying that it was their event, and they had the โrightโ to bar cameras.
Fine, but does that mean they should have?
It also emerged that Johnsonโs staff wasnโt too pleased with some TV folks who were pursuing the angle of Johnsonโs campaign debt, so they werenโt exactly doing back flips to let them in. Suddenly, as always happens when doors slam, the event was about transparency, instead of about a positive unity event. Some organizers took responsibility, others blamed media for overblowing, and at least a couple said they wanted to allow cameras in the first place.
To his credit, Mayor Johnson and one of his staffers called to apologize for keeping the JFPโs photographer waiting for three hours. โWe screwed up,โ he told the JFP, adding that he was a guest, and the decision was the organizersโ.
But regardless of who made the mistakes, PR gaffes are ultimately Johnsonโs problem. His challenge is to build a new kind of relationship with the pressโincluding the ones he thinks are out to get him. And everyone involved needs to learn that any lack of transparency is always a story and needs to be.
Mondayโs event was private in a sense, but it was public in anotherโthe money raised and who gave it are a matter of public record. So is Johnsonโs campaign debt. The organizers were shortsighted to try to block media coverage of what is clearly a matter of public concern, and they missed a golden opportunity for good press coverage for the city.
Going forward, the buck must stop with Johnson. He must ensure that information is provided to the media promptlyโand before legal deadlines, in order to build trustโand he must put a professional media team in place to anticipate such debacles as Monday night and prevent them. The city has serious challenges ahead; city transparency must not be one of them.
Previous Comments
Amen. I must ask, though: If Harvey Johnson’s team did not organize the event, who did?
#148754 | Author: Tom Head | Date: Jun 17 2009
They were so eager to publicize who Chrisler was getting his money from. Now they can’t do the same for Johnson? It’s all on a piece of paper someplace, I’m sure.
#148755 | Author: Ironghost | Date: Jun 17 2009
“It also emerged that Johnsonโs staff wasnโt too pleased with some TV folks who were pursuing the angle of Johnsonโs campaign debt” Even though the invitation CLEARLY emphasizes helping retire Harvey’s campaign debt. what else would he need a fundraiser for? c’mon, Harvey. be a leader. i hope he isn’t so consumed with having the business community on his side this time around that he overcompensates and lets them run roughshot all over him. There must have been some people there that either didn’t want to be seen with Harvey, or Harvey didn’t want to be seen with them.
#148762 | Author: eyerah | Date: Jun 17 2009
My sense, eyerah, is that the organizers didn’t want to offend some of the people in attendance — so they overdid the protection thing (forgetting to tell the media how it would work). This may well be a symptom of a systemic myopia about transparency — people do not understand the sheer importance of maintaining it across the board. And in this case, some of the organizers desperately wanted good media coverage in advance of the event, but they didn’t want to let cameras in the night of. You can’t have it both ways. Allen’s comment in the story concerned me a little — he wants the business community to deal with the mayor outside scrutiny of the media? Uh, that’s what the Better Jackson PAC tried to do. I know Mr. Allen wants good media coverage, and regularly harangues the media about not covering the positive Jackson stories (and he’s often right), but he can’t then expect for public business to be done privately. It cannot, and will not, work that way. (Oops, that story isn’t posted, yet. It will be shortly. Sorry.)
#148773 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Jun 17 2009
My sense, eyerah, is that the organizers didn’t want to offend some of the people in attendance — so they overdid the protection thing (forgetting to tell the media how it would work). that’s my point. the only reason to be offended by cameras being at a publicized event is that you don’t want to be seen there by the media. which leads to the question, why would you care? and, clearly, those people who didn’t want to be seen must have a lot of power/influence to be protected like that. i’m not saying there’s something sinister going on or anything like that, but the question has to be asked and we can’t just let it slide as miscommunication or “PR gaffes.” if Frank had done the same thing, many more questions would be asked about who actually was in attendance.
#148781 | Author: eyerah | Date: Jun 17 2009
Well, I agree with you. It’s ridiculous to care about being seen at an event like that — especially since it’s going to be public record that you gave money anyhow. I think they should release a full list of attendees, as well as the amount raised (which you know they know) right away, but I don’t expect to see that happen. At least the latter should happen promptly, though. There is no reason not to release it, and it would b good publicity to put out there that a diverse group of people helped Johnson raise a lot of money. And of course we all know that people showed up and gave money because they want to curry favor; that’s often why people give money, and it doesn’t mean they get the favors. I
#148782 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Jun 17 2009
I hope this isn’t an example of what’s to follow from this administration and/or Johnson’s organizers/supporters…
#149048 | Author: Queen601 | Date: Jun 26 2009
