Waste, Fraud, and Abuse: The Convenient Scapegoat Undermining the Public Good

In nearly every budget debate or campaign season, some politician inevitably resorts to the same rhetorical cudgel: "We need to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse."

The public has heard this messaging so often that it hardly registers as spin anymore. However, the real danger is not rhetorical fatigue. Politicians increasingly use this catchall phrase to justify deep and often damaging cuts to essential public programs under the guise of efficiency and fiscal responsibility. Moreover, the phrase suggests that government dysfunction is uniquely excessive, conveniently ignoring comparable – and sometimes worse – inefficiencies in the private sector.

Government Waste: Real, but Rarely the Root Problem

No one claims the government spends every tax dollar perfectly. In a vast federal budget nearing $7 trillion, errors and mismanagement occur, but scale matters. According to a 2021 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the estimated total for improper payments, including fraud and administrative errors, was about $281 billion. That’s a lot of money and highlights the need for improvement, but in absolute terms, it’s approximately 4% of the federal budget.

Even that number can be misleading. Improper payments include missing documentation or timing errors, not fraud – for instance, much of the inappropriate spending in Medicare and Medicaid results from paperwork issues.

Government programs are also subject to ongoing review and evaluation. Agencies like the GAO and Offices of Inspector General across departments conduct hundreds of audits each year, issuing corrective recommendations and triggering recoveries. In short, the system is designed to detect and address waste, unlike many areas of the private sector, where transparency is optional. It’s alarming, however, that mass firings of inspectors general by this administration will undermine a key mechanism to ensure proper oversight. 

The Private Sector's Glass House

Now compare this to corporate America. Fraud and abuse in business are often widespread and lucrative… until the bubble bursts.

Major scandals, such as Enron, Theranos, Wells Fargo's fake accounts, and Purdue Pharma's opioid deception, show how corporate fraud can persist with little scrutiny. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the typical organization loses 5% of its annual revenue to fraud, and global losses are estimated at $4.7 trillion per year. 

Even beyond fraud, businesses waste billions on ineffective strategies, failed mergers, excessive executive compensation, and short-term thinking. One infamous example is WeWork, which burned through $11 billion in private funding in just a few years with little to show for it.

Misusing the Phrase to Shrink Government

So why is "waste, fraud, and abuse" such an effective – and dangerous – phrase in politics? Because it creates the illusion that deep cuts carry no real consequences, politicians propose slashing food and housing assistance, healthcare, education, research, housing, and environmental protections while claiming they're merely cutting waste.

Consider the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Critics often mention fraud as a reason to cut benefits; however, the USDA reports that SNAP's fraud rate is less than 1.5%, and the overall payment error rate is under 7%. Most fraud cases involve retailers rather than individual recipients.

Or consider Social Security. According to the Social Security Administration's Office of the Chief Actuary, the program's administrative overhead is under 1% of total outlays, making it vastly more efficient than private insurance providers, which routinely spend 15% or more on overhead.

The High Cost of Reckless Cuts

The political appeal of targeting "waste, fraud, and abuse" is that it promises a win-win: cutting spending without hurting people. But in reality, many recent and proposed cuts – especially in science, education, health, and environmental protection – impose enormous costs on the country, both immediately and over time.

In early 2025, Congress framed cuts to NIH and NSF funding as fiscal restraint. The actual result has been a spike in lab closures, layoffs among research staff, and a growing exodus of early-career scientists to Europe, Canada, and Asia. The long-term cost of this brain drain will be fewer breakthroughs in cancer, Alzheimer's, climate science, and dozens of other vital areas.

The Department of Education (DOE) doesn’t stand behind education. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is weakening the public health and our global position as the leader in medical research. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is failing to protect the environment. An internal report states that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is unprepared for emergencies. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is dropping its investigations into government corruption and fraud. The list of these outrageous ironies goes on. 

When the US halts investment in its capacity, it loses more than just money on a balance sheet; it loses its way. People are left behind, and time, trust, talent, and opportunities are wasted.

Yes, let's reduce inefficiency and prosecute fraud. But let's also acknowledge the value and accountability inherent in public programs and resist lazy narratives that advance political agendas more than serve the public interest.

Ultimately, using "waste, fraud, and abuse" as a pretext for cutting social investments isn't about good governance. It's about avoiding hard choices and masking bad ones.

Aaron Sorkin and I Have an Understanding

My eyes widened when I read the review in The New York Times. I was on the same page as Aaron Sorkin, writer of some of the most celebrated works of television, film, and Broadway. Well, the “same page” when it came to understanding what was really beneath the centuries old story of King Arthur and Camelot. 

A new version of “Camelot” is scheduled to open on Broadway in a few weeks, with its book rewritten by Sorkin. The NYT article said, Sorkin “has made the production one of the most anticipated on Broadway this year...”

A bold decision was made to eliminate the story’s supernatural elements. “That means Merlyn, who in the original is a magician who can remember the future... is now a wise tutor.” Yes! The hocus pocus in the Arthur stories is fun but there are much more serious and contemporary lessons to be drawn from Camelot.

“The most common description of Merlin is that of an elderly wizard with a long white beard, wearing a pointed hat and a flowing costume accented by stars and moons. He’s synonymous with magic and sorcery. But Merlin’s significance was not his ability to conjure or foretell the future. Above all else, this archetypal sorcerer was a mentor and adviser.” That was from my 2011 book, Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table.

Merlin’s real mission was to educate Arthur, to expand his horizons, and prepare him for the challenges ahead. In T.H. White’s The Once and Future King (from which the play and Disney’s Sword in the Stone were derived), a young Arthur queried, “Would you mind if I asked you a question?” Merlin replied, “It is what I am for.” 

The magical part of Merlin wasn’t all fantasy writing, though. It helped tell the story of Arthur’s evolution from roughhousing boy to empathic leader. As a wizard, Merlin didn’t need to bring Arthur to other parts of the world to experience the different religions, cultures, and customs of humankind. Merlin turned him into a badger, fish, hawk, goose, and ant – creatures very different, more ancient, and with much wisdom to impart on the youngster.

The transfigurations into fur, fin, and feather (and bug) were a big part of the Merlin’s mentoring technique, which turned the learning process into adventures. Arthur was immersed in some dangerous places where he had to observe, adapt, and think quickly in his new surroundings. His abilities to react swiftly and smartly weren’t only important; they were essential. Later, as king, Arthur would leverage these experiences not only to better understand and connect with others, but also to win over doubters and adversaries.

Of course, much of the Camelot story revolves around the tortured relationships between King Arthur, Guinevere, his Queen, and Sir Lancelot, his best friend and general. “People think the show is about a love triangle, which of course it is,” said Alan Paul, artistic director of Barrington Stage Company. “But I really think it’s about the birth of democracy…”

Close, but not exactly. First, democracy was created in ancient Athens and second, Arthur wasn’t at all about abdicating in favor of elections. Arthur did, however, form a strategy of Might for Right – a way to channel the power of the knights to enforce his doctrine of fairness. But the people did not react well to what was coercion. 

“You will find,” he explained (in The Once and Future King), “that when the kings are bullies who believe in force, the people are bullies too. If I don’t stand for law, I won’t have law among my people. And naturally I want my people to have the new law, because then they are more prosperous, and I am more prosperous in consequence.”

Arthur did something we don’t see often enough in leaders today. He took ownership and had the courage to jump the rails when he saw the strategy failing. Arthur had the right intention with the wrong method. He realized the populace needed to embrace change, rather than have change forced upon them without proper communication. He evolved Might for Right into Equal Justice – the creation of a new civil code to change the very nature of civilization, and the relationship between the government and the governed.

Life’s lessons during the time of Camelot and the Round Table remain relevant because, at the core, they are about the human relationships that connect us, divide us, and drive us forward (or backward) in our various dealings – personal, business, or otherwise. Looking at the past, we can gain the accumulated wisdom from so many people, conflicts, and circumstances. The enduring qualities and complexities of human nature gave us guidance and assurance in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

What Bad Apologies Might Say About PR People

People screw up apologies all the time. I’ve studied this for years and published the 6 A’s of apologies in 2015 to help people remember to Acknowledge something happened; have an Authentic expression of regret; use Appropriate tone and language; choose an Acceptable venue; Act in the right timeframe, and Announce next steps. 

This advice could have come in handy to those profiled a recent Washington Post article: The 10 Weirdest Celebrity Apologies of 2021. These serve as reminders of how botched apologies can make situations worse and keep them in the news longer. 

It’s sad – but no surprise – that the classic non-apology apology appears in this piece. It’s what actor/comedian Harry Shearer once called the "ifpology." You know. These are the “If I offended you… If I hurt you… If I said something insulting…” lines that practically define the term cop-out. People need to have the courage – to be accountable – and change the “If” to “I”.

It’s hard to find an excuse for the self-inflicted wounds caused by thoughtless, hurtful, and unnecessary language. You’d think celebrities (and politicians and business leaders), who have access to staff and outside advisors, could avoid the avoidable. The Washington Post piece noted how “plenty of stars… [were] calling their publicists” to deal with their messes. 

So, here’s the question: If professional publicists were involved, how did these celebrities compound their mistakes and create even more problems? Possible answers include:

1. They said they were seeking counsel when they were not

2. They received bad advice and used it 

3. They received good advice but refused to implement it

We’ll never know, of course. But if the celebs (or others) received good advice and didn’t use it, could the public relations counselors have been more persuasive? Did they have the trust of their clients? Did they build support or alliances to bring additional, competent, compassionate voices to the table?

I’ve faced scenario #3 a number of times and tried my best, and I’m sure many who are reading this can say the same. At the end of the day, though, the clients did what they wanted; the outcome didn’t match what we got paid to do. If people knew we were involved, well, it didn’t look good for anyone. And you can’t always publicly distance yourself from the debacle; there might be contractual or ethical constraints.

A phenomenon seen in too many public pronouncements is when one can see right through an apology – the work of a PR advisor being so obvious. Here are a few examples where good apologies are undermined because they’re either visibly forced or fake, or both:

• Heather Chase from the “reality” series Below Deck apologized for saying the N-word (more than once) in front of her Black co-star Rayna Lindsey. Her statement posted on Instagram: “I am sorry for the hurt my ignorance caused Rayna in tonight’s episode. While I apologized to Rayna throughout the season, I cannot express enough how truly remorseful I am. Part of my responsibility as Chief Stewardess is to provide a welcoming, safe environment for the crew and I fell short. Over the past nine months since this episode was filmed, I have learned how my words and actions can affect others and I vow to do better in the future.”

• Justin Timberlake apologized to his wife, Jessica Biel, after being seen holding hands with Palmer costar Alisha Wainwright. His statement was posted, like the example above, on Instagram: "A few weeks ago I displayed a strong lapse in judgment — but let me be clear — nothing happened between me and my costar. I drank way too much that night and I regret my behavior. I should have known better. This is not the example I want to set for my son. I apologize to my amazing wife and family for putting them through such an embarrassing situation, and I am focused on being the best husband and father I can be. This was not that."

• A contestant on the “reality” series The Bachelor, Rachel Kirkconnell, came under fire for past racist behaviors. Her statement was posted – you guessed it – on Instagram: “While there have been rumors circulating, there have also been truths that have come to light that I need to address. I hear you, and I’m here to say I was wrong. At one point, I didn’t recognize how offensive and racist my actions were, but that doesn’t excuse them. My age or when it happened does not excuse anything. They are not acceptable or okay in any sense. I was ignorant, but my ignorance was racist. Racial progress and unity are impossible without accountability, and I deserve to be held accountable for my actions. I will never grow unless I recognize what I have done is wrong. I don’t think one apology means that I deserve your forgiveness, but rather I hope I can earn your forgiveness through my future actions.”

If you’re going to write an apology for someone, it should be made in their voice. And do more than release a prepared statement on social media (for crying out loud) and do it quickly, not days or weeks later. If your spewed on a broadcast, get back out there and clear it up. If a group or organization was the target, find a meaningful activity to support that community. If an individual was involved, go and make it personal, face-to-face. Bottom line: If you truly want to try and right a wrong, do more than check a box.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Stop “F”ing Up Your Apology

I’m betting more has been written about apologies in the last three months than in the last three years. An overdue societal reckoning of pervasive sexual misconduct has helped to fuel this revved up release of regret.

With so many examples, one would expect that apology statements have grown more refined and delivered in more meaningful ways. Unfortunately, we all know little has changed and I’m not even addressing the many outright denials of wrongdoing that demand apologies.

One of the classic non-apology apologies is back in the news, with new talk about the authenticity of the infamous 2005 Access Hollywood tape leaked before last year’s presidential election. One of the remarks candidate Trump made was: “I apologize if anyone was offended.”

We’ve seen other forms of this statement over the years: If I offended you… If I hurt you… If I said something insulting…

It’s the “f” in “if” that is “f”ing up these apologies. People need to have the courage – to be accountable – and change the “If” to “I”.

And let’s not get cute with the language. We need to be declarative.

Glenn Thrush of The New York Times said, “I apologize to any woman who felt uncomfortable in my presence, and for any situation where I behaved inappropriately. Declarative, yes, but it’s still a non-apology. “Any woman”? “Any situation”?

Apologies need to adhere to the 6 As:

1.     Acknowledging something has happened. If there’s no acceptance of responsibility, there’s no foundation on which to build a future relationship.

2.     Having an Authentic expression of regret. Remorse must be heartfelt and real – something to which the audience can feel and connect. 

3.     Using Appropriate tone and language. The mood, tenor and words must fit both the person apologizing and the audience for which the apology is intended.

4.     Choosing an Acceptable venue. Location determines who and how many will receive the message, and will help set the tone of the apology.

5.     Acting in the right timeframe. A delay or hesitation could result in mounting suspicion and a missed opportunity to correct the situation. 

6.     Announcing next steps. Demonstrating how the offense won’t be repeated can be vital in rebuilding trust and reputation.

We’re seeing many other ways people are undermining their apologies, beyond what Harry Shearer has called the "ifpology." I have recounted many of these in other writings and lectures but here are two popular dodges that are popular now:

The “I Don’t Remember” Apology.

Geraldo Rivera: “Although I recall the time @BetteMidler has alluded to much differently than she, that does not change the fact that she has a right to speak out & demand an apology from me, for in the very least, publically embarrassing her all those years ago.”

Russell Simmons: “While her memory of that evening is very different than mine, it is now clear to me that her feelings of fear and intimidation are real."

Al Franken first told reporters: "I certainly don't remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann.” However, a later statement attempted to clarify the message: "The first thing I want to do is apologize… There's more I want to say, but the first and most important thing—and if it's the only thing you care to hear, that's fine—is: I'm sorry.”

The “Yes, But...” Apology.

Charlie Rose: “I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate.”

Matt Lauer: "Some of what is being said about me is untrue or mischaracterized, but there is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed.”

Mark Halperin: “Some of the allegations that have been made about me are untrue. But I realize this is a small point in the scheme of things.”

Benjamin Franklin said, “Never ruin an apology with an excuse.” It’s still great advice.

This article also appears in Medium. I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

-->

What Was Communicated by Yahoo!’s Work-At-Home Reversal

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

We have to expect information leaks. Some are intended as part of a communication plan; some are unintended and, thus, may need a communication plan. Yahoo! is experiencing the latter.

A few days ago, AllThingsD reported that the company will no longer allow telecommuting. In a leaked memo from Jackie Reses, EVP of People and Development, employees were told that, “Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.”

It’s hard to say how big, what kind or how many problems are caused by the remote workforce. (“Only several hundred” employees work remotely, though thousands “might be at home one or two days a week.”) Whatever those problems are, the new issue for Yahoo! is explaining its move. In the absence of a planned roll-out, here’s how stakeholders might be interpreting Yahoo!’s surprise announcement: 

• Some employees abused the work-at-home policy, which necessitated some unequivocal action.
• Employees working at home were not performing as well as those in the office and/or don’t know how to manage their time at home.
• Yahoo! leaders don’t know how to guide or train their work-at-home employees. They can’t trust what they can’t see.
• Some competitors appear to be able to keep their employees on-site; in order to speed a turnaround, Yahoo! feels that they have to be more like them.
• They seem to be “throwing the baby out with the bath water” – Yahoo! believes a one-size-fits-all solution is best.

The list can go on – we can keep imagining until the source of the issue give us reason to stop.

As it happens, I’m a big believer in face-to-face communication but not necessarily in the 24/7 variety. I wrote in Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table, “The continued cohesion of a team can be helped by having at least occasional face-to-face contact. Let’s take the elevator, the car, or the airplane and get back to our base, our Camelot, every now and then and sit around the Round Table for a discussion.”

King Arthur knew that his knights would be gone for weeks or months at a time while they implemented his plans. Yet, he demanded that they all return at the same time once a year to share their stories, hear updates and reaffirm commitments.

Perhaps Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer and Ms. Reses can take some cues – some Camelot wisdom – from the past:

• Hire people you can trust, which starts with a thorough vetting process.
• Train your people adequately, and ensure expectations are set and followed.
• Communicate as often as is reasonable, practical and appropriate.
• And, allow for flexibility. One size does not fit all.

Clearly, working at home can be challenging both for the employer and employee; it’s definitely not for everyone. But in a world of increasing customization and personalization, they should take the time to understand what kinds of people doing what kinds of jobs can work for how many days away from the office. It’s possible that Yahoo! could increase its fortunes by finding the right talent, not just the talent who can be in the office five days a week. 

Addendum:

Four days after news broke about Yahoo!'s policy reversal, the company issued a statement: “This isn’t a broad industry view on working from home. This is about what is right for Yahoo right now.” In response to a NYT request for elaboration, a company spokeswoman declined, saying, “We don’t discuss internal matters.”

What a missed opportunity. True, it's an internal matter but it's an issue that has much broader, external implications -- look at what's being communicated about leadership, decision making processes, and corporate culture and reputation. Why not address the stakeholders? Talk about your vision, ideas and plans. Cite some research that helps to justify the decision. Take control of the message.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.


 

Do Not Attempt (Trust) Until We Do Some Work

I was invited to give a lunchtime talk to graduate students in the M.S. Program in Public Relations & Corporate Communication at NYU last week. Here are a few excerpts:

When I saw the bar chart below, published at the end of November by Gallup, I knew I had the nugget for my topic.

Though Public Relations is not a separate category, on this rating scale of honesty and ethics, a reasonable extrapolation might be in the range of Journalists at 24% and Advertising Practitioners at 11%. Not good. 

This is not a new trend, of course, as illustrated by this chart from Pew:

But why worry about the journalists? Journalists are still the most credible vehicle to transmit the stories, issues and events PR practitioners wish to appear in the media. If their credibility is shaky then so is ours. This matter of trust transcends public relations; it's one of the hottest topics in business, government and academia. Which led me to say:

It's part of life, I suppose. We know what to do, but many times don't follow through. Intellectually, we know we should exercise and eat more vegetables. And just look at all of the avoidable wounds that professionals, performers and politicians inflict upon themselves. But we can take an active part in reversing the trend of what Bill Margaritis, SVP of global communications and IR at Fedex called "trust destruction."

Again, it's easier said than done because:

We need the right environment, the right training and mentorship in order to gain the insights that allow trusting relationships to be built. Otherwise, we'll go into default mode: survival. And, in many cases, survival means pushing responsibility and accountability onto others.

I've written about fear before; it's powerful. So, how does one fight fear? Whistle a happy tune? Tell a joke? Try some learning instead. If we want to prove we can speak the language, understand the motivations and add value to business, we must act like scientists and explorers.

I told the group that my scientific training gave me an inquisitiveness that never left. A yearn to learn is what everyone should have in any pursuit. Truthfully, if I were ever quizzed on my major subjects in biochemistry and physiology, I'd have to look up a good deal of the the material. What I really took away, though, was the power of asking a good question.

See how happy that little clip art guy is when he's thinking of a question? The questions listed above just scratch the surface but it's crucial that we get into a habit of thinking things through and turning over a few more rocks before we reflexively answer a question or jump into a new situation.

And how can I leave the talk without adding some thoughts from a legendary tale (and mentioning my book, Camelot, Inc.)?

Please feel free to contact me. I'd enjoy hearing your questions and comments.

Thank you!


Between blog posts I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

The Incremental Excuse

Aurora and the Rejection of Small Steps

In the aftermath of the tragedy at the Aurora, CO movie theater, the pundits, politicians and lobbyists were at it again with all of the typical arguments about gun control in full force. Both sides of the issue dusted off the same statements they’ve used following the shooting of Gaby Giffords, and the massacres at Fort Hood, Binghamton, Virginia Tech, Columbine and on and on. We weep, we mourn, we do it again.

At the core is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (ratified in 1791): A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One the one side:

·     The Second Amendment has been ridiculously over-interpreted. (The Fox show Family Guy took a satirical jab at the subject.)

·     We need to limit the number and type of guns available for sale to the public, especially those designed for combat.

·     We must ensure that those who own them do so legally after appropriate background checks and registration.

·     Ammunition that is designed to inflict maximal damage and penetrate body armor should be banned, as should high capacity magazines.

On the other side:

·     Our freedom is threatened and the country is undermined if the individual right to bear arms is in any way curtailed.

·     The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm whether or not it’s used in connection with service in a militia.

·     If we lived in a more moral society, we would not see people misusing guns.

·     Gun laws won’t stop the insane from finding ways to kill people.

Personally, I have a difficult time with the last four points but the last is particularly irksome – the rationale that inaction is the best option. The line is that stricter gun laws won’t cut down on violence. It might cut down on gun violence but the violent will find other ways to fulfill their intent.

It’s the same line of reasoning used to say that we shouldn’t invest in solar or wind energy because it would only be drop in the bucket compared to our overall energy needs. Opponents to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) want it replaced or repealed; there’s nothing to negotiate. Or, it could be taxes and the deficit. The so-called millionaire’s tax can’t get any traction because, the logic goes, it would do so little to cut into our national debt.

Enough! We have to start someplace. We’d like to get to the goal line in one play but we can’t. It’s not happening. “Whatever axiom you want to use – half a loaf is better than none or Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good” (originally, Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien) – incrementalism is hard to accept but equally hard to forswear.” That’s what I wrote in my book, Camelot, Inc., and it seems appropriate to repeat it here.

We should remember that our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted that it remain. So, the Declaration of Independence was a compromise. It was a step. We had to wait nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

Of course we must cherish our individual rights but we are one nation. Those who love the Constitution should think deeply about its first line: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Please note the words “We” and “general welfare.” And notice also “union,” “Justice” and “domestic Tranquility.” The Founding Fathers would be in tears if they could see how we’ve misused and abused their words, and became one of the most violent societies on earth.

Compromise and incremental success may not seem satisfying, but it’s the way most things operate and succeed. Baby steps can sometimes add up to a completed marathon.

Congress and state legislatures across the country should take note. Indeed, we need to elect leaders with the courage and conviction to move the country forward. We need to reject the all-or-nothing mentality and reward the smaller but still important measures. We need to learn from the past, not live in it.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Redrawing the Boundaries Weakens Crisis Response

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

Why the Weiner Response is Failing

Unfortunately, we have another soon-to-be-classic example of what not to do in a crisis situation. When reports surfaced that lewd photos from Rep. Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account were sent to a Seattle woman, the congressman claimed his account was hacked. High profile hacking was in the news – Sony, Citi, RSA, Lockheed-Martin – so what better way to build a credible sounding story? Thus, the first crisis boundary was built.

That dike was breached quickly when questions arose: If such a violation occurred, then why didn’t he call the Capitol Police? Why couldn’t he say with “certitude” that the pictures were not of him? And, was conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s claim that he had more pictures really true?

So, the crisis boundary was pushed back and a second wall went up. Surely an admission would be the last stand. It would all be over when Rep. Weiner confirmed that he sent the photos, and that he was sorry, stupid and scared. Right?

Wrong. There were, indeed, additional photos (some pornographic) sent to more women, and there was a three-year history of “sexting.” And, now, more questions: Was government property used to carry on these activities? Was he conducting himself this way from his Capitol Hill office? What resources and who else might have been involved in covering up his carrying on?

Now he must push the boundary out yet again trying, in his way, to encircle where the next shoe might drop. He’s been calling colleagues directly to explain himself, beg forgiveness and to build some level of support. But, as the circle grows, the wall becomes harder to maintain, the perimeter more difficult to patrol and the imprint on all of his constituents more enduring.

Is he so different from some other high power, high profile politicians, entertainers or businessmen? No, but that’s hardly an excuse. We may be getting increasingly numb to these shenanigans but, for now, our sensibilities demand some sort of appropriate closure.

The bottom lines? He said he’d answer questions, then he wouldn’t, then he would again. He changed his story. He lied. He’s been behind the news, never ahead of it. And what is he left with? A shredded reputation. A seemingly endless supply of material for comedians. Calls for an ethics investigation by the House of Representatives. Demands for his resignation. Chances for his dream job – to be mayor of the City of New York – potentially dashed. Abandonment by friends and colleagues. A wife who has kept silent. The centerpiece of a new case study for the field of crisis communication.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

New Bedside Manners

Tell Me – Not the Internet – How You Feel
I haven’t conducted a formal survey but I’d be willing to pull some money out from under my mattress and bet that two of the most often-used words these days in the worlds of business and politics are transparency and accountability. There’s been little choice, if you think about it. The collision between out-of-control companies and politicians with public outrage and instant communication tools has sparked unprecedented demands for truth and openness.

The push to expand transparency and accountability has given rise to numerous rating sites on the internet – everything from food to teachers to virtually any product. This long list includes about 40 web sites where one can rate their healthcare provider.

In an AP story last week, “Docs seek gag orders to stop patients' reviews,” Lindsey Tanner reported how some physicians are coping with anonymous, negative patient commentaries on sites like RateMDs.com. Intrigued, I went to the web site and saw that over 185,000 “doctors” were rated, but this includes acupuncturists, chiropractors, podiatrists, psychologists and dentists. I clicked on the most reviewed doctors and found that the top four are ob/gyns and number five is a cosmetic/plastic surgeon. (Number six, I must note, is the fictitious Dr. Gregory House.)

It’s not a big surprise that women, the most influential healthcare decision makers in the family unit, are the most vocal. Randomly scrolling through, I found some posts to be reverential and others to be scathing. These comments are a one-way street, however. The doctor’s name is used but not the patient’s and, because of rules protecting patient confidentiality, there’s no way for the doctor to respond.

Here’s where a company called Medical Justice comes in. For a fee, they offer physicians a service that monitors the internet for patient comments and a contract (“mutual privacy agreements”) for their patients to sign where they “agree not to post about their doctor on the Web without the doctor's permission.” In addressing First Amendment rights, the site states that “Patients are free to discuss their care with other doctors, family, friends, licensing boards, attorneys, and any number of institutions. Mutual privacy agreements do not create a choice between healthcare and one's right to free speech (as some have erroneously claimed).”

So, on one hand we have sites that allow unfettered forums for blasting (or praising) health care providers. On the other hand, we have an effort to limit where patients can express their views. Here are a few thoughts:

Health care providers need to accept the reality of our information society. Telling someone they can’t do something is a sure-fire way to promote the opposite of what is intended.

Entering into a contractual arrangement with a patient over issues of speech may raise questions about the doctor’s motives, potentially damage the relationship and erect a barrier that decreases communication.

If women are using this medium most frequently, then some special attention needs to be paid to their concerns and communication preferences. There should be an office environment where concerns can be aired before they hit the internet. And, if face-to-face commentary is uncomfortable, perhaps an anonymous mail-in survey should be made available.

While both sides have legitimate positions, I think we require a third hand. What’s needed is a forum where patients can post justifiable comments, where those who read them can have some assurance that no axes are being grinded. Health care providers need assurance that inaccurate, reputation-killing commentary is kept off the web, where it’s so difficult to excise.

Patient advocates and organized medicine should collaborate on setting standards and policies – a code – for responsible, ethical rating sites. Both patients and their doctors need to get on the same side of the fence on this issue. When it comes to your health and wellness, I can’t think of an issue where it’s more important for all the parties to act as a team.