102: Truth or Trumped-Up? A Hospital Visit Leads to a Lesson in Transparency

Hey there, it's Molly. You're listening to a newer edition of the Confident Communications podcast. The reason why is because I had to record this introduction and tack it on the beginning, because I recorded the episode originally on Saturday in the hours after watching the President's physician, Sean Connally, brief reporters about the President's health at that moment. I felt after watching that briefing that the topic of transparency would be a good topic to tackle. But now here we are, less than 24 hours later, and Conley came back for round two. He must be a glutton for punishment, and he had the onerous task of rebutting some of the information he said the day before. I cannot keep up with the specifics. If I keep updating the podcast, I'll probably be doing it up until Tuesday when it releases. But one thing I do keep up with is this, the importance of transparency. If you duck and weave, if you dodge and you do not want to answer the question, it is going to come back to haunt you. The web you weave, when you start to deceive, only grows bigger. So the podcast it stays as is. The lesson about transparency still rings true, loud and clear. However, the only update is the intention. So instead of listening with an ear of what could happen to you if you're not transparent, it's a lesson in what will happen to you when you're not.

Take a listen how the administration is making that job tougher by either putting out bogus information or not practicing the kind of transparency that they themselves promised just two days ago?

I apps that are similarly doing sketchy things. We're going to make sure that we tell people then to that's definitely something that looking back on this I regret that we didn't do at the time.

Is this the new normal, this idea that the briefings are only going to be out on camera when the White House thinks it's in its advantage to do so?

I think that these CEOs make appearances like this one and say, we promise we'll tell you everything you need to know. We will be transparent. No more secrets. But do we ever see any real action on it?

There's a total lack of transparency. This is a very, very sad day.

That last clip you heard was candidate Donald Trump speaking about President Obama in the run up to the 2016 presidential election. And yet here we are around four years later, and the issue of lack of transparency is now dogging President Trump as doctors are treating him from the coronavirus, which is which he contracted last Thursday or Wednesday, the firm date of the virus transmission has yet to be determined, but the events of the past week have brought the idea of transparency into the light after officials of the President appear to be hazy at best with the information. A few days ago, I received a text from a communicator friend who asked what I thought about the mixed messages coming out of the White House and the steps of Walter Reed. Now, what better place to answer that question than this podcast? On this episode, the three elements to transparency that establish credibility. Remove any of the three and then grab a shovel, because you will need to dig the hole that you'll be thrown into, one that is impossible to escape if you're not transparent. Now, the concept is called transparent communications. It's a proactive public relations term, one that gives the notion that open and observable activity by an organization helps the stakeholders understand the organization and supports its actions. Three elements to transparent communications are facts, timeliness, and clarity. What are the details? When did you tell us and how clearly did you tell us? Credibility is established when you have all three. When you don't, it's almost like a sweater unraveling. You just start to pick and then the whole thing comes undone. Now let's discuss the elements of transparency as it relates to communicating the President's condition following his COVID 19 diagnosis. And now, a few days before President Trump's diagnosis, I was conducting a communication training. The topic Public Opinion. Now. In one of the group exercises, I asked the participants to answer a question about their CEO's salary. This was a section where I'm leading into the importance of transparency. Now, I told them a number of activists in their industry frequently asked this question to bait someone so they don't answer it. Then I explained my framework to the participants. The own it, clarify it, and promise it framework. The methodology for telling the truth, for being transparent. You just tell them the answer that they want. Especially in their case, because these people, the activists, they can look it up online anyway. Now, whenever I ask the question, I always get pushback. Not from everyone. It's just like a smattering of people. But there always is pushback. Now, last week, the first three people I asked in this exercise tell me how much your CEO makes. It's role playing. All three of them gave me variations of, I'm not answering you. Thank you for asking, but you can go online to find the information. Another person said, why are you asking me? Another person said, well, he earns a salary that costs the consumer $6 a month or some type of formula. Now, I gave him credit for the math, but it was awfully complicated math. So I explained to the participants each example. No one answered the question. Everyone dodged and weaved. Now, one gentleman even told me that no one was going to ever ask him the question in the first place. So that's why he didn't want to give it to me, so there would be no need to answer. Now, I don't want to just pick on a few participants of one training, but I illustrate it because it happened just as President Trump was contracting this virus. Now, in this particular workshop, I get pushback all the time. The participants always try to explain why they shouldn't answer. And I'm explaining to them, if you answer, it diffuses a situation. It leaves the questioner, the person who's asking, who may genuinely be curious with the answer. If you dodge and weave, it just creates more problems. Now, the footnotes of the story. I finally did get someone to answer, and they were from New Jersey, and they said, our CEO is paid $220,000 a month and worth every penny. Boom. There it was. Transparency. There's the answer. And it flowed right out of their mouth. And, and this is the point of the episode today, it's the importance of transparency and why you shouldn't be afraid to simply tell the truth. Now, there are many cases where full transparency can be tricky. Case in point, the President of the United States in the hospital suffering from COVID 19. Now, of course, I know this. There are risks to revealing too much about the President's condition. It could send the stock market reeling, could impact national security. But I can guarantee no one else within the sound of my voice who has to answer questions to their consumers, to the public, to the press, whichever stakeholders asking the tough questions, you should be able to answer openly and freely. They deserve answers. In other words, just open up the windows, let the sun shine in. Now, unless the information is private or proprietary, or there's an absolute necessity for legal reasons, that you cannot say anything to your stakeholders, you should make every attempt to be open, honest, and forthcoming with journalists and the public, because it's critical for effectively managing a crisis. Now, three elements to transparent communications are facts, timeliness, and clarity. The facts name the who, what, why, where, and when and how to the best of your ability. The more W's, the better. Transparency cannot exist without facts. Next, how quickly did we get the information out and how clear was it when we received it? Do we have the full story? If so, you can start to build credibility with your stakeholders. It cements your version and allows you to own the story. Without the three elements, you lose it. Simple as that. You no longer have control of your narrative. Now, what we saw and heard in regard to the timeline of the President's diagnosis and the subsequent treatment is confusing. At the time of this recording, right now, in the day after the President was diagnosed, I don't know what to believe or who to believe. It's understandable that there would be a natural tension created by this outbreak of the virus. At the White House, there needed to be a press conference at Walter Reed Medical center, and they provided it within 24 hours, or just over 24 hours of President Trump being admitted. Now, the press conference was led by the president's physician, Dr. Sean Connolly, and he spoke in front of the medical staff treating the president at Walter Reed Medical Center. However, the press conference left the people and journalists with even more questions and doubt. Now, the White House apparently feels that many people feel the same way. That's why on Saturday night, last Saturday night, at 6:51 Eastern Time, the President tweeted a video with an upbeat update on his condition.

I came here, wasn't feeling so well. I feel much better now. We're working hard to get me all the way back. I have to be back because we still have to make America great again. We've done an awfully good job of that, but we still have steps to go and we have to finish that job.

That video coming in at just over four minutes was an effort to show proof of life, proof of a healthy life of the president. Now, the powerful punch behind that tweet with the video of President Trump speaking directly to his stakeholders, his base, journalists, his critics, Democrats, that response finally outweighed the confusion. It tamped it down just a bit. Now, let's rewind the clock. A few hours earlier last Saturday afternoon, before the tweet, to look at why Trump's handlers felt they needed to follow up with a video on Twitter, but from Walter Reed during his treatment. Now the press conference. Now, in my opinion, Conley's remarks, his attempts at answering questions were less than transparent. After the press conference, BuzzFeed News interviewed Bob Watcher. Now he's the chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California in San Francisco. And he said he was old enough to remember the press briefings by Dr. Dennis O'. Leary. He was the principal medical spokesperson for when President Reagan was shot. Watchers said that the medical team was the model of clarity and transparency and that the country found them to be truly reassuring. And he also added, let's just say that this one, Dr. Conley and his teams did not meet that standard. He said that Conley's job was to give clear, credible, accurate information. And instead we got misdirection, confusion, and evasiveness. Let's see what you think. Again, three elements to transparent communications are facts, timeliness, and clarity. All right, the first clip. This is Dr. Sean Connolly speaking to the press about President Trump's condition. I want you to listen for the catch in his voice.

As reported yesterday, consultation with this group, I recommended we bring the President up to Walter Reed as a precautionary measure to provide state of the art monitoring and any care that he may need.

What you heard were the facts, but did you also hear the hesitation? There was hesitation around the words precautionary measure.

Hmm.

The fact that Dr. Connolly glitched during a true statement leads me to believe that it was a tell, that he was going to need a lot of flexibility with his delivery of the facts. In other words, it's one of those nonverbal tells that I talked about in my podcast, how to spot a liar. When someone isn't being fully truthful, it comes out in their voice, in little tells. Now, Next, here is Dr. Sean Dooley and what are the chances of two Irish seans on the President's medical team? Maybe he wanted the luck. Here's Dr. Sean Dooley talking about the President and if he received oxygen and.

The President this morning is not on oxygen, not having difficulty breathing or walking around the White House medical unit upstairs.

You heard Dr. Dooley say the President was not on oxygen this morning. He was walking around. Here's more.

He's in exceptionally good spirits. And in fact, as we were completing our multidisciplinary rounds this morning, the quote he left us with was, I feel like I could walk out of here today. And that was a very encouraging comment from the President.

Now, at this point, Dr. Dooley appears to be on the staff of the President's press team because he's framing for us how President Trump is reacting to his treatments. So it really does make you wonder if the medical staff was urged to add these anecdotes for supporting only a mild, incredibly mild case of the coronavirus. Now back to Dr. Sean Connelly. Now he's adding his anecdote to the statement.

It's important to note the President's been fever free for over 24 hours. We remain cautiously optimistic, but he's doing great with that. Oh, one other note. It should be clear that he's got plenty of work to get done from the Chief of staff, and he's doing it.

Hmm. Are you feeling how I'm feeling? Is it appropriate for a physician to opine about his boss's work habits? It seems a little heavy handed, a little force fed. It's interesting to Note that after Dr. Connolly concluded his briefing, a person familiar with the President's health told reporters that President Trump's vitals over the past 24 hours were very concerning and that the next 48 hours would be critical. Quote, we're still not on a clear path to a full recovery. That person, Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. Mixed signals, to say the least. Moving on now, Dr. Connelly took a bit of a risk. He took questions from reporters. I don't know if this was him being bravado, being overly confident, but you know what, good on him. He tried it and he was able to answer a lot of questions. So it definitely is a true test of transparency. But how well did he do it? Can Dr. Conley apply transparent communications to the open Q and A portion of his briefing? How did he do? Clearly stating facts with clarity. Take a listen.

Yeah. So the last saturation that we had up walking around, he was about 96%.

He has not received any supplemental oxygen.

He's not on oxygen right now. That's right.

He has not received any at all.

He's not needed any this morning, today at all? That's right.

Ooh, that's a dodge and weave. The reporter asked if he received any supplemental oxygen and Dr. Conley responded, he didn't receive any oxygen that morning at all. That's right. Sounds wrong. Dr. Conley. Now the press, I think, well, they smell a rat. Listen for my response framework here. Is Dr. Conley owning it? Are we getting the facts? Is he clarifying information or just confusing it? Is he making any promises about proving more of his information? Do you feel that you're going to get more down the road from Dr. Connelly or, or is Dr. Connolly eventually going to clam up? Will he sound more credible as time goes on or less? Let's take a listen.

Doctor, what was the date of the President's last negative test?

I'm not going to get into all the testing going back, but he and all the staff routinely are tested. And so.

And so Dr. Conley didn't answer. Here's more.

Have you done a screen? Has there's been any sign of any lung damage whatsoever?

We are, we are following all of that. We do daily ultrasounds, we do daily lab work. The team is Tracking all of that.

Has there been any sign of damage?

I'm not going to go into specifics on what the findings of any of that.

One thing. Has he ever been on supplemental oxygen?

He. Right now, he is not on.

I know you keep saying right now, but should we read into the fact that he had been pre.

Yesterday, today he was not on oxygen.

So he has not been on it during this, his Covid treatment.

He's not on oxygen right now.

Again, the dodge, the weave, everyone. This is why you need to adopt transparent communications, especially in a growing crisis. Not answering the question increases the skepticism. I tell my clients and students in my training all the time, when you close a door to the press or to the public about information they are seeking, you are opening a back door to increase scrutiny. And more pointed questions come in that require more details that you do not want to give. And the cycle continues. It sounds something like this.

When was the positive diagnosis made?

You said 72 hours. That would put it at Wednesday.

Yeah. So Thursday afternoon follows. Following the news of a close contact is when we repeated testing and given kind of clinical indications add a little bit more concern. And that's when late that night, we got the PCR confirmation that he was.

That reporter checked Conley on his math. He was a day off with his diagnosis. People, the press, they are going to pay attention to the facts. They mean more because you have to stick to it. Once you've admitted something, it's very difficult to go back and undo it. When someone appears to be hiding information, they need more clarity. Is there any clarity on how he became infected?

Not going to go into that. As far as his care, it's irrelevant.

Or when he became infected?

Yeah, we're not going to go into that. We're just tracking his clinical course and providing the best care we can.

There you had a reporter asking for one of the elements of transparent communications. She needed clarity. Not going into it, as Dr. Conley says, is not providing clarity. He's just clamming up.

So why was the decision made to transfer him here?

Because he's the President of the United States.

Okay. Accurate. Succinct. Too succinct. Take that response and let's compare it to a more exuberant response. Listen to what the truth sounds like. Note the difference in tone, the voice level and, well, just the excitement. Reporters tried one last time with the good Dr. Conley.

Doctors have found that the prone position is helpful for Covid. Has he been in that at all?

No, we actually. He asked about that. He did Thursday into Friday. He's been briefed by the task force and all the scientists for months. And he brought that up, you know, as we were discussing his cough. And at that time, his oxygen levels were okay, and we didn't feel like we needed to do it. We came up here, discussed it with the team as well. We consider all options, but he has not needed any of that.

He asked about that. To me, sounds like one of the first truly true answers. I believe him until I don't hear the reporters try again to get to the facts.

I'm going to try to pin you.

Down one more time.

I know you said there was no oxygen.

Yeah. He's not on oxygen today. Receive any on Thursday, and he's. What's today? Saturday? No. No. Thursday?

No. Thursday?

No.

Friday.

No Saturday.

That's fine.

That was why we were confused.

Thursday, no oxygen. None at this moment. Yeah. And yesterday with the team, while we were all here, he was not on oxygen.

And here's where it ends.

So has the President actually been admitted as a patient to this hospital?

The President is a patient at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

That's the response. So whether you recognize it or not, Dr. Connolly is already in reputation repair mode. He is framing the situation by vacillating between denial and diminishing. If you took Dr. Conley at his word, the President is, who knows, incredibly healthy or not. Because he didn't give us the full answer, we didn't hear all the facts. It wasn't as timely as it could have been in his response. And he wasn't clear. There wasn't much clarity. Therefore, Dr. Conley is no longer a credible spokesperson to speak on behalf of the President's health. Dr. Connally was also in a number of altered states. He was confident, he was assured, and then he was curt and then restrained. At times, it felt like Conley was unsure of what he was saying. He was constantly adjusting the framing of his response. It seems to satisfy another agenda. To cover, to hide, perhaps. Even if that wasn't the case, his lack of transparency created an unstable climate for trust to grow. The people and organizations who act openly and honestly with the media and the public, they will be rewarded with trust and credibility. Likewise, those who seek to mislead and deceive will find themselves in a hole that they can't get out of. Transparency increases knowledge and understanding to your stakeholders. A lack of it creates rumor and unknowns and indecisions that needs to be controlled. It's not good enough to say, just trust us, because we're saying it because today people no longer trust blindly. They need a reason to believe you.

How?

By the elements of transparent communications 1. Tell the facts. Use simple, relatable language. Stay away from acronyms, jargon, and fancy fluffy words that sound confusing. The public doesn't want complicated rationales, excessive descriptions. Tell the facts in a timely manner. Silence is a vacuum where new narratives start, and a lot of them start on Twitter and next Tell them with clarity. Nothing should be ambiguous. You want to balance perspectives at all times. Understand that people want to know everything. But if you are clear as to why you can't tell them everything, you'll still appear transparent. Now, for organizations, it's not easy, especially if you're in the White House. Especially if you're at the White House right now and you have a president who is fighting. COVID 19 because we're firmly in an era where the power of the narrative has been taken away from the people and the organizations. We who are speaking to the press and to the public. Because now that power is in the hands of the public. Right now, the power of word of mouth is outweighing the official response. So if you're going to speak, if you're a spokesperson or speaking on behalf of an organization or a person, or if you are the head of an organization and you are drafting your own response, remember this Transparency is effective in crisis management. Transparency is a necessity to prevent a crisis. The Takeaway Every public brand, person or organization has its weaknesses. They all do. But those deficiencies can be managed. They can come out of a crisis even better. If you manage it with transparency, there is a rising demand for it. Never assume ever again that people are going to accept no, I'm not giving you an answer. People are demanding it. There is always a question of how transparent. Is transparent enough? It's tough to say, but the answer is usually enough information that provides insight into the thinking and the considerations of the source. In other words, if you're responsible for giving out information about an incident or about a crisis that's happening, you want to leave the public satisfied that they are hearing the truth, they're hearing facts in a timely manner, and using clear and concise language. There needs to be clarity. All right, that's all for this week on the podcast. Thanks so much for listening. Remember to Follow me on Twitter Molly McPherson I think I'm going to be tweeting a lot about this this week. Also, if you want weekly newsletters for me about how to communicate with confidence in this era, you can go to mollymcpherson.com subscribe and last, remember to head over to responsekit.com we're going to be launching soon. We're going to be providing communicators with all the tools they need to respond with the right message at the right time on the right channels. That's all for this week. I look forward to talking to you again next week. Bye for now.