Tag Archives: bridgegate

Selective criticism of the media

Like most developments in the ongoing bridgegate saga, the Christie Administration’s 5 Things You Should Know About The Bombshell That’s Not A Bombshell email has raised more questions than answers.

Among the new questions is: If the governor had such a poor opinion of David Wildstein, why did he appoint him to an influential post at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey?

But that’s not the only contradictory message emerging from the email.

The email begins with strong language criticizing The New York Times for “sloppy reporting” that set off a “media firestorm.” But the message then cites numerous media reports to support its comments about Wildstein and his demeanor.

Granted, the email targets just one news report in one publication and is not a blanket criticism of all media. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the Governor’s Office has no qualms about using news reports that bolster its arguments, but is quick to criticize the media when the reporting raises new and legitimate questions about the governor’s role in bridgegate.

# # #

Advertisements

How Christie may survive ‘bridgegate’

Chris Christie may have lost the first few rounds of “bridgegate,” but there’s still plenty of rounds to go, and don’t be surprised if he’s still standing when the final bell sounds.

Sure, the New Jersey governor suffered some serious blows last week when emails and texts surfaced showing that high level staffers in his office played a role in orchestrating traffic tie-ups on the George Washington Bridge and in Fort Lee, apparently as political retribution against the city’s mayor. But by the time the week came to a close, Christie had safely navigated his way through a minefield that threatened his political future. More minefields may lie ahead, but for now, the governor is well positioned. Here’s why:

First, he did everything right when it comes to crisis communication. He fired the people he said were responsible. He made himself accessible to the press — and answered reporters’ questions for nearly two hours at a news conference. He was apologetic and repeatedly said he was misled and felt humiliated. And he traveled to Fort Lee to personally apologize to the mayor.

As I wrote on Friday, none of what Christie did will work if it turns out he’s not being honest about how much he knew and the extent of his role in the affair. Since then, however, another 2,000 pages of documents have been made public, and although those documents revealed a series of disturbing actions on the part of Christie’s staff, nothing yet has shown the governor was directly involved in the decision to close traffic lanes and tie up traffic.

With some of the state and nation’s best reporters — and large news organizations with extensive personnel and resources — aggressively pursuing the story, I have to believe that, if there is information implicating the governor in those documents, we would have seen it be now.

Meanwhile, the Assembly Transportation, Public Works and Independent Authorities Committee is subpoenaing more documents, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is launching an investigation and the media is not going to give up on this story for a long time, so there still are more potential minefields ahead for the governor.

But let’s look how this turns out if nothing changes: More documents are made public, but still there is nothing that directly links Christie to the decision to tie up traffic. Likewise, the U.S. Attorney’s Office also fails to find anything that would implicate the governor.

In this scenario, Christie emerges with the perfect talking point to use whenever he’s asked a bridgegate question:

“That issue has been dealt with. When I found out about it, I fired the people who were responsible, I apologized to the mayor of Fort Lee and I answered questions from the press for almost two hours. The U.S. Attorney’s Office conducted an extensive investigation and found I had no involvement. Next question.”

# # #

All the right moves, but it’s only Day 1

I tend to agree with most of the crisis communication “experts” who feel N.J. Gov. Chris Christie handled things well yesterday in his press conference about the controversial lane closures on the George Washington Bridge.

The governor fired the people he said were responsible. He was apologetic and repeatedly said he was misled and felt humiliated — and he kept the press conference going until he answered every reporter’s question (almost two hours).

That said, none of what Christie did will work if it turns out he’s not being honest about how much he knew and the extent of his role in the affair. Having worked in a governor’s office, I believe it is highly unlikely, but not impossible, that Christie didn’t know about the lane closures, especially since he is a notorious micro-manager.

On the other hand, it’s hard for me to imagine that Christie would have stated so emphatically and so publicly that he didn’t know about the plans to close the lanes and intentionally snarl traffic. He’s smart enough to realize the consequences if he is caught lying about his knowledge of the incident, and he must know that the press and various government agencies are going to be looking into the affair aggressively for a long time.

One other note on a related development that took place yesterday: The fact that former Port Authority official David Wildstein invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions before the Assembly Transportation, Public Works and Independent Authorities Committee could ultimately prove to be very damaging in the long run.

# # #