Having reached a point where I thought no-one had anything to learn from whatever Michael Laws said or did, there are a couple of lessons from the sad, squalid, tawdry and downright silly saga of his “relationship” blues.
The first question is, “What was he thinking?” Not “What was he thinking making whoopee with a recovering P addict former prostitute on home detention?” (although those of you with taste may wonder “WTF was she thinking having a fling with him?”).
What was he thinking when he decided to blow the affair in a lengthy, tortured, and largely incomprehensible statement on Radio Live on Friday before there was any mention of the matter in the mainstream media?
It seems he’d surmised (wrongly), on the basis of rumour or paranoia, that the woman had leaked spicy email and text correspondence to a Sunday paper and decided “to take the sting out it” by outing himself.
Instead he only foolishly stung himself, inflating this tacky story’s newsworthiness and in doing so he broke every rule of crisis management.
Rule No. 1. First engage brain and try to think the problem through rationally.
Rule No. 2. Assume nothing, clearly establish the facts, and don’t ascribe motives to what’s happening until there is clear proof.
Rule No. 3. Wait for the media to contact you. Then, first interview them to find out what they know and what they intend doing with it.
Rule No. 4. If the media haven’t contacted you and you cannot bear not knowing what’s going on, make inquiries of the editor as to his/her intentions (preferably without compromising yourself by revealing all when the paper knows little or nothing).
Rule No. 5. Before making any comment stall the inquiries while you work out exactly what you need to say and don’t wish to say.
Rule No. 6. Tell the truth and nothing but the truth (you don’t have to tell them the whole truth – that’s their job to find out) and don’t embroider the story with patently lame excuses of the “I just popped in for a cuppa and chat about a book” variety.
Michael Laws, the smoking gun comes from the hole in his foot
The first serious mistake Laws made was making assumptions. “OMG they’ve got dirt on me, what would I do in the same circumstances? I’d crucify them!” As a talkback host and politician Laws has lived by the sword and so he assumed he would die by it.
On radio he has always been quick to rush to acid-laden judgement and so he assumed others would do the same with him.
If he took a moment to think about it, what did he have to fear? A single (albeit recently separated) adult male has a liaison with a woman who had a colourful past but is now on the road to redemption and turning her life around thanks to finding God, him and a rehab programme.
It’s obvious now that the “correspondence” cannot have been as lurid as first implied because neither Sunday paper reprinted it. The Sundays have never hesitated in the past to ignore individual privacy and publish private correspondence, emails, texts and Facebook posts, so I assume the editors decided it was juicier to leave the contents to the prurient imaginations of the reading public.
What was he so worried about? He is not standing for mayor of Whanganui again? He may nurse ambitions to run on the NZ First ticket at the next election but he’s been forced to resign the party and Parliament before and I hear Winston Peters doesn’t want him back.
In my opinion Laws has always been a shameless self-publicist, commenting to the media on many aspects of his private life that most of us would want to keep private were we in the same position, so what did he have to fear from this latest exposure?
He could have been working on the Tiger Woods theory (or what Tiger should have done but didn’t): Apologise early, often and fully. But in this case he apoligised too early publicly, too late privately to the woman, and nowhere fully enough so the media and blogosphere have continued speculating.
I have to disagree with my esteemed colleague Dr Brian Edwards who’s blogged on http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2010/08/reflections-on-the-lawssperling-affair/#more-3686 Laws “did exactly the right thing”. Wrong Brian and wrong Michael. There may well have been no story if he hadn’t started panicking and flapping his jaw.
If he had waited, the media would have come to him and he could have taken the high ground, made his comments, and looked the aggrieved party subjected to cruel and unwarranted tabloid attention.
I believe there are two schools of thought in this country about Michael Laws. The first is comprised of the masochistic voters of Whanganui who elected him and the 2-3% of radio listeners who afflict themselves with his morning show, all of whom think he’s great.
The second group, who are in a massive majority, regard him and his bigoted opinions with barely disguised disgust and hastily flick past his unreadable rabid Sunday Star Times column with a shudder of revulsion.
Neither group will change their opinions of him due to this fiasco.
Perhaps he hopes it might improve his radio ratings? I doubt it. In fact, I suspect Sean Plunket will soon be dusting off his c.v. as a result.
The guy is a publicity hungry wack job. Every six months or so he manufactures some controversy so he can see himself above the fold somewhere. Pathetic.
I have absolutely no interest in what Laws gets up to in his private life, and I suspect most people feel the same. What is interesting to me is that Laws appears to think that this sort of behaviour IS newsworthy, hence his jumping the gun. That’s an extremely worrying belief to be held by someone who apparently still has aspirations towards a career in public office and broadcasting (or anyone who has relatively easy access to the media.)
My mum told me never to take joy in the misfortune of others. I’m sorry mum…watching the worm squirm has been 100% joy…nicely put Bill
Nice post, Bill. It must be great to occupy those elysian moral heights. Nicely chosen pic of Laws by the way. And I do of course appreciate your esteem.
But it’s your advice that bothers me. I’ll go with points 1 and 2. Then you suggest “interviewing the media to find out what they know and what they intend doing about it.” Sadly, that interview will inevitably become part of the story and will almost certainly be used against you.
Rule 4 requires you to ring the editor “preferably without compromising yourself by revealing all when the paper knows little or nothing.” Now that would be bloody clever of you. Perhaps you could offer your readers a sample transcript of just how to go about it.
Rule 5 “stall the inquiries”. Sample transcript again thanks.
Rule 6. “You don’t have to tell them the whole truth.” Better to have them drag it out of you on live TV, Bill?
And did I misunderstand you or were you suggesting that the Tiger Woods approach was to be recommended? Surely not.
We can, however, agree that our approach to handling the media is different. Our motto has always been “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
And the reality is that the whole truth will come out eventually anyway.
Secrets and lies, Bill, secrets and lies. Never a good approach.
I couldn’t help but smile whilst reading this blog. Laws is a spiteful, idiotic, hypocritical, show pony; call me a sadist but I also love to watch him squirm. Well done Billy
What arrant nonsense Mr Edwards. In this case, the truth is stranger than fiction, and makes for far more unpleasant reading.
This case is little short of absurd. The man did nothing wrong, yet feels he needs to apologise for it? If he only applied a fraction of those standards to his repugnant radio show and newspaper opinions, he may have discovered some public sympathy for this pathetic predicament.
Instead, he continues to come across as precisely what he is – a self obsessed and unctuous hypocrite.
In this case, Bill Ralston’s advice is totally right. He should of either observed Gordon Liddy’s defense – “No one ever got in trouble with their mouth shut” – or applied the maxim, “Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
And let’s face it: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is barely a standard by which Mr Laws has ever operated. Or is your memory too short to remember why he had to resign from Parliament in the first place?
Brian, nice to hear from you and your marketing department.
You seem to take exception to my suggestion that Laws raced to public comment without adequately ascertaining the facts and paid the price of that folly.
I have no idea what you would advise your clients in similar circumstances but my advice would be to find out everything that is being said about you before launching into a public mea clupa, denials and accusations.
You wouldn’t ask the media what their angle on the story is? Who they’ve talked to? What evidence they have? If you don’t, Brian, you’re flying blind surely and bound to crash?
You can”t ask these questions without dropping yourself in trouble? Of course you can.
You advise against ringing the editor of the publication to find out what if anything they’ve got and might run? It’s a simple question to ask, “I hear you may be running some gossip about me, is that true?” If the editor answers no, it’s an end to the discussion. If he/she says “Yes” then you have the chance to find out what is being said and demand a right of reply before the story goes to print.
If Laws had taken a moment to call the editor of the HoS he might have discovered they weren’t running the story, hence no reason to make a public statement.
The Tiger Woods Approach mentioned, if you read it carefully, is “when caught out, apologise quickly, sincerely and often – don’t first try and wriggle out of it.
If your friend Chris Carter had done this honest approach he might still be in the Labour caucus, with a future.
“Stall the inquiries” is media training 101, I thought you might have heard of it. It involves the “stall but call technique” where you say to a reporter, “I’m happy to talk to you about this, when’s your deadline, what’s the best number to call you on, I need to check a few things/ I’m in a meeting/ I need a pee/ whatever I’ll call you back in half and hour? – and do so.
As for “you don’t have to tell them the whole truth”, that’s just commonsense. Transcript; Q:”Did you have a relationship with Ms X?” A: “Yes”.
You need not to go on to volunteer that she is a recovering P addict, ex-prostitute and on home detention!!!! If the media know that information, fine. If not, it’s not your job to tell them. Just don’t tell anything that’s not the truth.
I agree with you, secrets and lies are never a good approach – pity your Labour Party clients never took that good advice of yours when they were in power … Paintergate … several sacked and sidelined ministers … ministerial expenses … and the rest.
Cheers.
The moral of this story is simply never date a man who raids your eyeliner.
Yo Bill,
This whole drama says to me, yes, there is a God, and Michael’s chickens are coming home to roost. He has so cruelly rubbished so many good people with great ideas and input on his joke of a radio show, one can only hope this is the beginning of the end for the soapbox only Michael can occupy (no room for anyone else, and he certainly is not willing to share.) We nearly split a gut reading the comments of the object of his desire. We really do miss you on morning talkback, Bill, oh for the days when one could speak their mind without fear of crucifixion. HATU
Just thought let you people know that I support Jacqueline Sperling in this debacle, I sent a message to her for support as she is a human being after all via facebook! She is not in my friends list but needs moral support as recovering P addict, and who care’s if she was a prostitute! All people fantasize being with someone they may or may not know and have a personal relationship, You only have to watch Coronation Street with Ken Barlow going behind Deidre’s back with another woman on a canal boat! Remember no one is perfect not even me, the media sucks for all I say! Jacqueline also mentioned to me personally via my private facebook message inbox saying that she is open about her life with anyone who want’s to know more about her, Michael and Jacqueline are now just friends and that’s all I have to say!
My trident! Where’s my trident?! Who’s nicked my fuckin’ trident?
This is starting to read like a World of Warcraft forum thread.
Michael Laws is a Rogue – Bill Ralston is a Paladin, and Mr Edwards is someone’s level 1 Troll alt.
I bow to you all, and feel somewhat better about my own sad little online persona.
I’d just like to quote Lisa on this one, and reiterate: “The moral of this story is simply never date a man who raids your eyeliner.”
FYI
if you want to go to Brian Edwards official website http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz you’ll actually find Jackie Sperling. the lady in question, posting 3 blogs explaining some very interesting details about how the press got their facts wrong, her side of things and possible pending legal action.
now ya can’t scoop that one, Billy…straight from the horse mouth..so to speak?
Agreed, it is important to be completely truthful, but you aren’t obligated to give the complete truth.
Bill, your message is strong and soundly predicated. But the pic — you chose to use — undercuts it, badly. It signals a predetermined dislike for ML, making you appear less like an objective commentator and more like “one” who harbours a seething grudge.
bill n brian got it 100 pc wrong. laws played it perfectly… he managed to tease a non-story into maximum publicity…which is always his object.
“mark” has nailed it. I was going to add my usual two-cents’ worth on BE’s site. But, I thought, WTF? Laws has this “suis generis” thing, inhabiting inside his head. He sees himself as this giant colossus, striding across the media landscape. He’s the narrator who trumps his own narrative, by the imposition of “Self”. And It’s a tedious conceit. This is not doing his credibility stocks, much good.
He’s there commentating upon other people’s lives as well as his own. And those dual mindsets can’t coexist for a credible commentator. But, worse still, everyone’s jumped in, to not only make their judgements, but to judge their own counterparts’ judgements, as well. This has become an unholy media indulgence, where the actual substance is incongruent to the actual news’ value.
Paradoxically, it’s become a back-slapping extravaganza where there aren’t opposing factions, because it’s an all-engaging festival of the mutual stroking of each other’s egos.
Oh the tangled web. Nice read Bill. As a regular visitor to the ‘Land Of Laws’ (W h ANGANUI) you can bet a mongrels patch someone at the dinner table is going to talk about him. I look forward to my next visit. I agree He played his hand before the others had even noticed the cards were dealt. Indeed, would they have even bothered to play? I have to say..I feel a little sorry for the poor fellow. That is quite a height he has fallen from.
Bill
Now will you admit you’re wrong?
Every Sunday newspaper said they had texts, email msgs etc and some quoted from them.
The Herald on Sunday was investigating the detail with them and pressuring associates of mine to confirm info from those messages.
I never said Jacqui put them in the public doman … others did.
Cheers
Michael Laws
Bill
Because Brian’s client believes himself every bit as compelling and news-worthy a subject as Tiger Woods, Brian’s challenge was all the more difficult.
Whats the differance between an ex prostitute and an ex broadcaster? With the prostitute, atleast you got what you paid for and likely left with a smile. Why the slur?
“Yes, thou shalt know, spite of thy past Distress,
And all those Ills which thou so long hast mourn’d;
Heav’n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn’d,
Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn’d”
sorry just had to point out the big elephant in the room.
Giles – Michael isn’t a client of Brian’s. Brian’s blog is a personal view.
[...] On Ralston’s blog there’s a nicely caustic exchange with Edwards in the comments, arguing finer points of protecting clients during a PR crisis. There’s also an enlightening To Do List of tactics, and a refutation from Laws about a few of Ralston’s assumptions. Edwards’ blog has comments from Jackie, the women involved, that address several factual inaccuracies and explain the experience from her point of view. [...]
***barely disguised disgust and hastily flick past his unreadable rabid Sunday Star Times column with a shudder of revulsion.***
Actually, it is one of the few reasons to read the Sunday Star Times. Keep up the good work Michael.
There is a lesson to be taken away from this, that we could probably all use in our personal lives.
Communication is the key to any successful relationship, but even more so when someone is in the public eye.
I too, have owed Michael an apology over this whole issue. Not being used to being associated to someone so high profile, i listened to rumours. I took them as fact for the simple reason, that i could not (and still do not) understand why on earth someone would just make things up to hurt someone else. I ended something that until that point in time, had been a positive thing in my life, without giving him a reason, or a chance to explain.
When he heard rumours or threats, that i had leaked correspondence to the media, instead of just contacting me, and asking me, he believed them. I did not grant him the luxury of answering to the rumours that i had heard, so he hardly owed me that same favour in return.
Had we both communicated with each other, openly and honestly, none of this would have ever happened.
The only correspondence that any of the papers could have possibly had, was a long winded email that i had sent Michael two days after ending the relationship, explaining why. It was very boring and detailed how i was not prepared for my daughters to see me in another destructive relationship.
Hardly newsworthy. None of this was newsworthy.
I take a certain amount of blame on board, as i am sure Michael does, for what transpired in the media up until Saturday morning, however, from that point, when the media realised that there was no story, they should have left it at that.
I would like to correct your comment above Bill, with reference to my recovery.
I was well and truly already recovered by the time i met Michael, so my recovery had nothing to do with meeting him. Nor did i ever find a rehab program. I do not believe in rehab programs. I have never attended one because i believed that they only had the potential to introduce me to more people who were struggling with the same issue that i had, and could potentially drag me down with them, if they fell.
I have never and will never, associate with anyone who is involved with that drug again, and that included attending any rehab program. That is how i dealt with it. I do realise that everyone’s experiences are different, and rehab may well work for others. That was not a road that i chose to go down though.
Kind regards,
Jackie Sperling
“The only correspondence that any of the papers could have possibly had, was a long winded email that i had sent Michael two days after ending the relationship, explaining why. It was very boring and detailed how i was not prepared for my daughters to see me in another destructive relationship”….
another destructive relationship?
Glad your still friends then..
All politicos are clowns (the laws of libel being what they are in this country, I will not name the exceptions).
They all make “cock ups”.
I never anticipated a literal one from Lhaws.
Chuckle
This whole sorry thing read like a script for an episode of Seinfeld.
Much ado about nothing really.
Why is Michael living living in Wanganui, when Wisteria Lane beckons?