Political blogger Jonathan Bernstein and others have started a list of stories and outcomes that reporters and political junkies keep hoping for, but which are highly unlikely.  Perfect examples include a live filibuster, a brokered convention, a "truly nonpartisan leader" and a serious third-party presidential candidate.

When I read or watch political news, it makes me crazy when these scenarios are trotted out as if there is a slim chance any of them will occur. Consider the brokered convention story line. The last convention that went beyond a single ballot was in 1952 when the Democrats picked Adlai Stevenson. Yet, as the Washington Post noted in January 2008, reporters often succumb to "brokered convention frenzy." (In this case, a Post writer contended the GOP was headed for a brokered convention in Minnesota.)

Why are so much ink, bytes and broadcast time devoted to stories that aren't going to happen? Is it because we are all attracted to the unusual more than the usual? Partly. Is it about ratings and readership? Certainly. But here's another reason. Far-fetched scenarios such as brokered conventions have become a form of conventional wisdom; they are expected narratives for journalists covering campaigns.

In the same way, reporters covering business have their own volume in the Book Shelf of Media Narratives. Unfortunately, many of these expected story lines are negative. When it comes to business involvement in politics, nearly all of them are negative.

Common narratives claim businesses bribe politicians, all lobbyists are unethical, or that corporations don't care about the public good. These story lines are easy to find when you skim newspapers and websites - especially with distrust of politics and business so high.

While each of these narratives may seem as improbable as a brokered convention, that's not the public's prevailing view.  Much of the blame goes, of course, to people such as Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham, whose actions damaged everyone's reputation. But if you look at the years preceding these scandals, negative attitudes about government have been high ever since Watergate. The familiarity of the corporate corruption theme has helped to make it widespread.

In addition, reporters rarely begin a story without a thesis in mind. The thesis is often designed to show conflict ("Parties Argue Over Healthcare Reform") or contrast ("Obama Calls for Unity, but His Party is Divided"). That's the nature of journalism. But if this conflict-or-contrast thesis is layered over a critical narrative, the results aren't going to be pretty.

This is one of the main reasons why politicians and CEOs get so frustrated with media coverage. Like it or not, there's not much news value in stories reporting that a senator voted his conscience or that a corporation won the Most-Admired-Company award. I've had reporters tell me that a positive story about lobbying or corporate good works couldn't make it past their editor's desk because "it didn't sound right."

So, how do you get your message across when the conventional wisdom says - to put it bluntly - that you work for a lying, cheating band of scoundrels?

The first thing to do is to be aware of how your actions and statements support negative narratives. Every corporate act - from awarding bonuses, to announcing plant closures, to opening a business in a new country - helps to define one's reputation.  Once again, when business news is made, reporters almost always investigate whether there is conflict ("Big Box Store Drives Local Lumber Yard out of Business") or contrast ("'Green' Company Produces Large Amount of Waste"). Every company and its communications department ought to try very hard not to fit the description of the corporate bad guy.

The second thing you can do is to pitch a counter-narrative - as long as you have the evidence to back up your point of view. Sometimes, after a conventional-wisdom narrative has appeared for a while, a journalist will be open to writing an article that turns that so-called wisdom on its ear. If you have a good story to tell and you don't overstate your case, you can actually make positive news. A firm, for example, can be positioned as the environmentally responsible chemical company or the regional bank that knows how to safeguard the public's money.

The trick is figuring out when the media market is so saturated with one story line that reporters are open to a new approach. This is why, during a political campaign, advisers don't want a candidate to "peak too early." They want their man or woman to play the role of fast-rising challenger for as long as possible. As we all know, front-runners get lots of positive coverage, but over time they invite more scrutiny as reporters try to overturn conventional wisdom.

For Corporate America, the bad news is the media-consuming public hasn't grown tired of the anti-business narrative - though there are early signs that attitudes are changing. The good news is that political and social winds do shift eventually. Companies that have acted in good faith, built healthy relationships with the media and understand stakeholder expectations will be in a better position to rebuild their reputations.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.

There are so many lessons to be learned from the recent Toyota recall calamity that it's hard to know where to start.

Where I won't start is with a review of the 10 major tenets of crisis management. That's because the news media, which often dismiss communications professionals as spin doctors, have run their usual stories featuring PR experts offering keen insights on recovering from a communications challenge.

"Experts are divided on whether (Toyota's) media strategy will be effective," wrote USA Today. Faced with an unprecedented recall, "the public relations machine at Toyota Motor Corp. - one of the most savvy brand-creators in Asia - is floundering," reported Reuters. These and other articles talk about the need for a company and its CEO to be open and empathetic, take full responsibility and explain how they will address the problem.

Good advice.  And it's advice that executives working in related fields, including government relations, should heed. Crisis management is no longer just a way to preserve one's image in the marketplace. As companies have become larger and more influential, a scandal - whether real or perceived - can create major political fallout.

Managing a 21st century crisis is much different than managing one in 1982. That's when Johnson & Johnson's response to the Tylenol poisonings made it the textbook model for crisis communications. Thanks to the Internet and 24-hour cable news, events now unfold more quickly, giving companies less time to react. Customers, investors, employees, community leaders and government officials go online when they first hear about a crisis; they don't wait to hear what the company has to say. They quickly sense growing outrage from news coverage, activist sites and social media.

Because of the Internet's ability to magnify an event, constituents often put pressure on policy-makers and regulators. That's why an operational or communications issue can become a political one overnight.

This brings us back to Toyota, whose recall has led to a full-blown political investigation. Last week, Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda's appearance before Congress included a public apology, a plan to address the company's problems and confident statements about the automaker's future. But, given the scale of Toyota's troubles and the number of people affected, the political aftershocks will be felt long after the cars have been repaired.

"This is not the end," said Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in a Chicago Tribune story. Towns plans to investigate whether the company withheld vehicle-design and testing evidence in previous lawsuits.

Clearly, a pattern is emerging. A corporate crisis, whether it starts on Wall Street or in Japan, begins as a business story, becomes a top news story and eventually - once activists, legislators and regulators have weighed in - turns into a major political story. Sometimes, as we've seen in the financial crisis or in the aftermath of Enron's collapse, the political story can lead to tough new regulations.

In the Toyota case, as with other crises or scandals, a company's political involvement strategy has become part of the media narrative. "Toyota heads to Capitol Hill with team of lobbyists, history of political giving" read a Page One headline in the Feb. 22 Washington Post. The article is a roadmap for how these types of issues are now covered.

The story starts by listing major lobbying firms the company hired and notes that they "join a force of 32 lobbyists already working Capitol Hill on behalf of Toyota and the Toyota dealerships' political action committee, Gulf States Toyota." It then spells out how many in Congress who sit on committees investigating Toyota have received campaign donations from the company's PAC or employees.

Next is a list of Toyota donations to charities and other groups with close ties to members of Congress. It also turns out that Toyota has launched a grassroots campaign, and many of the firm's 170,000 employees and franchise owners have called or visited congressional offices. In addition, the newspaper reports that Toyota has given money to the Democratic and Republican governors' associations.

Some might read the above and conclude Toyota has a well-integrated public affairs program. It is engaged with government at all levels, and as spokesman Ed Lewis told the Post, "It's realistic to assume that to help us educate all those important audiences, we would need expert counsel and extra arms and legs."

Yet, at a time of great public skepticism, a deconstructed corporate public affairs program can look mighty suspicious. Each financial tie to the company and each political tactic seems worthy of scrutiny.

When dealing with government, context matters. Political activities, when conducted openly and ethically, are not only legal - they're part of a company's community involvement strategy. But you can't expect the media to present them that way.

This is why every company should spend more time talking internally and externally about why and how it gets involved in politics. As the Post story reveals, most of this information is publicly available. A company can be open on a routine basis, or it can wait until a crisis so that it becomes the subject of an investigative news story.

Disclosing your political activities on a corporate website, alongside your rationale for political involvement, can help dispel skepticism. Doing so on your own terms - before shareholders demand it or Congress requires it - also seems like a good idea. (I provided some examples in my Sept. 23 post. Another site worth checking out is eBay's Main Street.)

A second way to better manage the political fallout from a crisis is to improve coordination between communications, government relations and other functions. A centralized approach to message development and issues management ensures that the company's core values and commitment to resolving problems are clearly stated. While some companies don't have organizational structures that make coordination easy, many do an excellent job of prioritizing issues and actions across the corporation, regardless of who reports to whom.

One thing is for certain. You don't want to learn how to manage a crisis when you're in the middle of a crisis. That's the challenge Toyota now faces. And while it has taken many positive steps to address quality concerns and rebuild its brand in recent weeks, it has a long way to go to overcome consumer outrage - and survive the political scrutiny that follows.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.

As a rule of thumb, whenever a politician says there is a perception problem, he or she actually has a "reality problem." In politics, business or everyday life, people who think they are often misunderstood are generally to blame - through words or deeds - for the image they've created.

George W. Bush thought he was misunderstood on issues ranging from the environment to foreign policy. When confronted early on about his environmental record, Bush said the public's perception would change as soon as he finished laying out the facts. Those facts, it turned out, often worked against him (for example, his shifting policy on arsenic levels in drinking water). When it came to the war in Iraq, he insisted for years that he was a "man of peace." Bush finally admitted to the London Times in 2008 that his bellicose rhetoric had a lot to do with his reputation as "a guy really anxious for war."

Barack Obama faces a similar challenge when it comes to the belief that he is anti-business. In a lengthy interview with BusinessWeek earlier this month, Obama was asked about the impact of anti-Wall Street rhetoric and his views on major business policy issues. His answers are telling.

When asked why his anti-business reputation persists, the president responded by outlining the steps the White House has taken to stem the economic crisis, stabilize the banking system and create a favorable business climate. His arguments are compelling and the administration does deserve credit for smart, decisive action. But the president's answer indicates that, like Bush, be believes public opinion will change as soon as he has finished laying out the facts.

As we discussed in my Nov. 24 post, facts matter less and less these days. Politicians can't just take action and make policies - they have to "sell" those actions and policies, over and over again, until their version of the truth becomes the dominant narrative. It's a noisy world, and if our leaders don't take the time to communicate properly, many in the general public won't even get the message that something has been accomplished.

Here's another example. Like the administration's economic achievements, the recent capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, second in command to Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar, is huge news and should dominate media coverage. Well, it did - for about a day. But in no time the White House had shifted the conversation back to healthcare, a budget deficit commission, campaign legislation, jobs bills and who knows what else. I'd wager that most Americans have no idea that in recent weeks there has been major progress in the war on terror.

Let's go back to the BusinessWeek interview. Since Obama didn't really answer the reporters' first question, they asked it again.

This time he acknowledged that many CEOs have viewed his tough talk about Wall Street as anti-business. While admitting to the "spillover effect" of his Wall Street rhetoric, he said he felt his administration had been more restrained this year.

Restrained? When the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case last month, the president called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.'' If that's restrained, what does unleashed sound like?

Obama, like his predecessor, has taken too long to understand that words matter and an easy applause line can do damage. It's tempting to use strong language in front of a supportive crowd ("Mission accomplished"), but in the age of social media you can bet that your words will resonate on YouTube for a long time.

Another reason for the anti-business misperception, said the president, is that interest groups working on issues such as healthcare, energy and financial regulatory reform "have got a lot of sway within the business community." To combat this undue influence, Obama has focused on developing personal relationships with CEOs. He figures that by engaging business leaders individually, he can not only get their input, but also convince them that he has their interests at heart.

As BusinessWeek noted last July, the president has won allies by working to stabilize the economy and tackle long-term problems. Because they have found common cause with the White House or recognize its accomplishments, CEOs from firms such as GE, Honeywell, Pimco, UBS and Duke Energy have had unusually wide access to the president and his advisers. Many of these top executives have been publicly complimentary.

The problem with this strategy, of course, is that CEOs don't make the best goodwill ambassadors. As corporate executives, they are too busy running a business, dealing with shareholders, managing Wall Street expectations and addressing workforce issues. When they talk to the president about a problem such as climate change or healthcare, they are generally representing themselves, not the entire business community. Sooner or later, the president must find a way to win and keep the support of more trade and business associations - the ones with so much "sway." 

Based on his most recent BusinessWeek interview, it's clear that Obama admires many CEOs, and he's quick to differentiate the good from the bad. He needs to take the same, individualized approach when he talks about companies and industries. If the president is serious about improving his image in the business community, he should stop inferring that all banks are greedy, all oil companies are evil, all insurance companies are insidious and all corporate lobbyists are, well, even worse than the companies they represent.

The White House and Congress also need to understand that vague statements about growth, innovation and prosperity don't do much for business people. Companies don't need to win on all the issues, but they want specifics: How big a priority is the Colombia free trade agreement? What will happen with tax policy? What would the "Volcker Rule" do for banks? The longer questions remain unanswered, the more companies feel uncertainty. And uncertainty means business risk.

The president's ability to shed his anti-business image will also depend on whether the bold steps taken over the past year pay off. As he notes in the BusinessWeek interview, continued recovery in the financial sector, comebacks by GM and Chrysler, and passage of healthcare reform that actually reduces employer costs could earn him goodwill from many business leaders.

And that could happen - but not without an entirely different approach to what he says and how he says it.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.