255: The Real Blind Side: The PR Battle Behind Michael Oher's Lawsuit Against the Tuohys

This week on the podcast, a look into the unfolding legal and PR drama between NFL veteran Michael Oher and the Tuohy family famously portrayed in the film the Blind side side note in 2009, Sandra Bullock spoke with Entertainment Weekly about her role as Lee Ann Tuohy in the film. Entertainment Weekly shared the interview again last week. In the story, they quoted Lee Ann Tuohy, quote, I am all about loving and giving, but I'm going to kick your ass if you do something you're not supposed to do. End quote. Foreshadowing. Welcome to the Indestructible PR Podcast where we share breaking news and pop culture zeitgeist moments that aren't just for social media. Each week I pick a buzzy story, analyze the juicy bits, and follow with a PR lesson. Using tried and true media and PR tricks of the trade, this podcast can help you dodge those crisis curveballs and build a rep that's not just strong, it's indestructible. In today's episode, Phooey. The legal battle between Michael Oher and the Tuohys and the real life story behind the Blind side you all saw the movie, right? We all did. From the author of one of my favorite movies, Moneyball, came the book the Blindside Evolution of a Game that was Turned into a movie. Now, watching this movie, I'm sure many of you were focused on the Michael Oher story and his acceptance into the Tuohy family. I'll admit I was also focused on whether or not Sandra Bullock could pull off being a blonde and the reveal of Tim McGraw's hair under his ever present cowboy hat. Is it just me now? Fun facts about the film before we get into the more downcast portion of the podcast. Julia Roberts was offered to play the role of Lee Ann Tuohy before Sandra Bullock. She turned it down three times because of her concerns about playing the part of a devout Christian. What Julia Roberts walked away from Sandra Bullock. She took a pay cut to make the film and agreed to a percentage of the film's profit. That was a win, along with the other win of the Best Leading Actress Oscar for her performance. And I also think by the end of the film she could pull off that color, but I think she looks better as a brunette. But the movie is not just about family and fame and how relationships can be perceived in the public eye. That is true for real life as well. So Michael Oher, the inspiration behind the film and the book, last week he filed a lawsuit against the Tuohy family. They took him in as a teenager. And he claimed that when he was 18 years old in 2004, he was duped into signing a petition that that designated them as his conservators and gave them the authority to manage his business and interests legally. Now, in this podcast, I wanna look at the two statements that came from both sides, the both legal sides, and to provide us with a fascinating look not just at the legal strategy, but also the PR strategy, because a public relations narrative can play into a legal narrative. So it's important to the information out there quickly, and the information that you put out there is the one that shapes or frames the narrative. So let's analyze the two statements. Now, first, let's look at the Tuohy family statement. It's a little interesting when you look at the timing of what the Tuohys were doing when they found out this information. Now, if you read the headlines or if you follow on social media, you know the headlines of the story. We're not talking about a lawsuit here. We're just talking about Michael Orr wanting to step back from his conservatorship. He wants to have full legal control of his finances away from the Tuohy family. Now, knowing that there's likely more at play, I think we can see what is at play when you read the statement. So not only do I want to look at it from a public relations point of view, I want to look at it from a human relations point of view, because I think that plays a bigger role in this case. I don't think this is a legal case. This is a family case. And the reason why this became big news is the same reason why a lot of crises turn into big news. And I'll let you know what that is. Okay, first, let's get into the statement from Marty Singer. He is the attorney representing the Tuohy family. Sound familiar? It should sound familiar. I just mentioned him on the podcast when I was talking about Lizzo. And did it sound familiar when you listened to the Lizzo podcast? Of course it did. Because I also talked about Marty Singer when I was talking about Ricky Martin and other clients that he's had. His name comes up a lot because he's known as a legal fixer. And in Hollywood, if you're a legal fixer, you're also a PR fixer. And that's what Marty Singer is. So I mentioned Lizzo and Ricky Martin, but also Charlie Sheen, Quentin Tarantino, Jonah Hill, someone else who I talked about on this podcast. He is someone who is going to get his client through Something legally and reputationally. And he has a very take no prisoners approach. You know, I had an interview today with a media outlet and we were talking about Marty Singer. And I was saying we were talking offline. I wasn't being interviewed. I was a pre interview for a show. And I said he reminds me of Harvey Weinstein. You know, how Harvey Weinstein just bullied people to do things for him and it turned out he bullied people to women to do things for him that would be sexually, you know, for these lot of cases, actresses to work with him. It feels like Marty Singer has that same type of bully behavior in how he approaches these legal cases. But just as Harvey Weinstein's method of bullying in order to get an outcome that he wanted, I feel that Marty Singer's approach is just as antiquated. It's for a different time, it's for a different news cycle. It's for a different culture of people who look differently on behaviors. That's just my preamble. Now let's get into the statement itself. I have to be honest. I'm not gonna read the entire statement. It's too long. And that is part of the problem. It is six paragraph long. I'm only going to read the first paragraph and then I'll pull out information because honestly, I don't need to read the entire statement because you're just going to get a sense of it from the first paragraph. So here we go. Quote, anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that the outlandish claims made by Michael Oher about the Tuohy family are hurtful and absurd. The idea that the Tuohys have ever sought to profit off Mr. Orr is not only offensive, it is transparently ridiculous. Through hard work and good fortune, Shawn and Leann have made an extraordinary amount of money in the restaurant business. The notion that a couple worth hundreds of millions of dollars would connive to withhold a few thousand dollars in profit participation payments from anyone, let alone from someone they loved as a son defies belief. Now, that was part of a statement that first was released to ESPN the this came out on Tuesday night. And I'm gonna get into why the timing matters. Now, the framing that you heard there clearly was negative. And a signature mark of Marty Singer is in the first paragraph of all of his legal statements. He comes out guns blazing. He comes out as and portraying his client as the victim, which you know, is understandable in a legal case. However, the people who hire him are the ones who did the doing. You know, what I mean, they're the ones who have been sued. They're the ones who people are filing, you know, some legal action against them. So he tries to paint his client as the victim right outside the gate. And how he does that is a strategy that you see a lot of times called, you know, this Darvo. It's where you blame the victim. So the first thing we hear in that statement or that you read, if you happen to read the entire statement, he is questioning the intelligence and the credibility of Michael Oher. So the statement starts with that demeaning tone, stating that everyone with a modicum of common sense can see that Or's claims are hurtful and absurd and not just Or Mr. Or, he's not the 18 year old, 17 year old kid anymore, he's Mr. Orr as hurtful and absurd. So it's also suggesting that Orr's arguments lack any rationality or any type of logic, which is the same thing that the movie did to Michael Oher. And he was quoted as saying that he was not pleased with how he was portrayed in that movie. So the school where he was enrolled was called Briar Crest. And, and his job, that he was a left tackle. So he was heavily recruited by a lot of top schools. And so he was portrayed, though, as someone who never even had a shot, you know, really at football if it weren't for the Tuohy family. But also the film portrays him as this unskilled big guy who was barely acquainted with football. So he did not care for the fact that the movie portrayed the Tuohy family and their love of football as the reason why Michael was a good football player. And he had said that he was not enamored by the Forrest Gump like depiction of himself in the film. In other words, he's saying, I don't like how the film portrayed me as someone who was slow. And this statement does the same thing. Next singer is portraying malicious intent by stating that or was threatening the Tuohys. Now the son, Sean Tuohy Jr. He's known as SJ. He was on Barstool sports radio in my TikTok. I said it was the podcast. Forgive me for not being completely up to date on everything that Dave Portnoy does. But so he was doing that interview with sj and in that interview SJ said, so this is the son who was like a brother to Michael Oher, not an actual brother, that he was suggesting that Michael Oher was trying to scam, you know, the money from the family that he was demanding $15 million. And if they did not pay up, he was going to plant negative stories about them in the press. And so he had said, Sean Touhy Jr had said that he had attempted to run this play several times before and that was a quote. And that he tried it. And numerous other lawyers. This is a quote From Sean Tuohy Jr. Quote, numerous other lawyers stopped representing him once they saw the evidence and learned the truth. End quote. Now what's interesting about these types of statements, that they are stating that there was some malicious intent. We always hear about the word $15 million. $15 million. But we only hear that from the Tuohys and a singer representing the Tuohys. So that clearly is a framing tactic. That is in this story that Michael Oher is somehow trying to extort the Tuohys. Also that sinks into this idea of or having very cynical motives for what he's doing to the family. So in the statement, it's accusing him of filing the lawsuit as an attempt to drum up attention for his book tour. So he's framing his actions as self serving and manipulative. It's interesting. A friend of mine who is bringing her son or brought her son down to Ole Miss to start school his freshman year, she sent me a photograph of a book signing. So Michael Oher was signing a book on Tuesday, August 15th at 5pm Ole Miss. So my friend was saying, you know, I've had a couple friends that had mentioned that it all seems timed to when his book was coming up. And also what's kind of interesting here too, the only friends of mine are people that I know who have written to me about this case are all friends who I identify as Republicans. I mean, not necessarily like extreme conservative or someone who I disagree with. I lived in Washington D.C. you know, for a number of years. And when I lived there, I worked during the time of George W. Bush's White House years. So a lot of my friends are, you know, identify as Republican and I identify as an Independent. And then I, of course I have New England friends and my DFL Minnesota friends. So I have friends all across the spectrum. And so I have all of these friends. But I thought it was interesting that the only ones who mentioned this Michael Oher piece and kind of questioned the motives of Michael Oher or at least his book publishers are my friends who identify as Republicans. And it took me a couple steps to even recognize that that was a part of the story. I never thought about it. I thought it was just this family. But I went, oh, wait a minute, so that led me to go to Fox News and see what some of the headlines are and is there a slant to the story? So, in other words, this goes into my college classroom. Is there an agenda setting theory at play? And that theory is when editors can decide what makes news. Now, you're not gonna see it as much in a newspaper, for instance, or local television. They, you know, they want to bring the news, you know, straight. But there is going to be, you know, some bias in news. And there's a lot of liberal bias. I shouldn't say a lot, but there is liberal bias in mainstream media, certainly. But in Fox News, you're going to get the slant to the right. And sure enough, like I was pulling out, here's two headlines from Fox News. Michael Orr demanded $15 million and threatened to, quote, plant a negative story. The Tuohy family attorney claims Sean Leanne Tuohy denied allegations through their attorney, but Michael Oher demanded $15 million. So a lot of the headlines that I saw on Fox News were very pro Tuohy and very anti, you know, Michael Oher, because part of the Tuohy brand is that they are Christian. And Lee Anne Tuohy is a born again Christian and a very open born again Christian. So this story, I didn't even think of it in that way, but it's also another one of those stories that falls either side. And again, if my friends are listening to this episode, it's not a knock against my friends at all. And actually, I thank my friends because they opened my eyes to another aspect of this story. Okay, so continuing on with that negative framing, he also, in this statement was highlighting past legal failures. I'd also mentioned that SJ was saying that on Barstool as well. So this idea of attempting to run this play several times before, but failed due to lack of evidence. So this statement undermines his credibility. So it's going to portray or as dishonest or persistently dishonest or deceptive. They're also going to paint him as ungrateful because this family took him in. And this family didn't need to take him in. I mean, he didn't look the same as everyone else. And that is something that the movie stresses, as does the family, that not every adoption looks the same. So by emphasizing that Michael Oher turned his back on this family despite everything that they did for him. So despite all the love and the care and the financial support, he's portrayed as ungrateful, disloyal, and that further tarnishes his image. So These framing techniques, they collectively serve to discredit Orr and paint him in a highly negative light. And that's going to contrast sharply with this virtuous image that's painted by the Tuohys, because leeann Tuohy, a part of her branding, is all about families not matching. They don't have to look the same to be a part of the same family. Now, let's compare this to Michael Oher's legal statement. Now, I first found out about this statement during a media interview, and this is not the best time to ever learn information about the story that they are interviewing you for. But I was speaking with Alaina Nicolau, so she's a senior entertainment editor@today.com and she covers television, pop culture, movies, and all things, you know, streaming and viral. I get a lot of interviews like this nowadays, and I have to tell you, it's reporters like Elena and also a producer I spoke with went NPR the day before I appeared on the Morning Edition with Steve Inskeep. Reporters who understand and cover digital media, these digital media reporters, they can get into the nuance of stories. They can read between the lines very, very quickly in stories. So I think there's a reason why they call me is because I'm doing the same things. But truth be told, they're doing it in their full time jobs and they're doing a very, very good job at it. I'm trying to keep up with them. As in the case of Elena here, when she said, did you see the Michael Ohr statement? I went, I didn't. So she forwarded it to me. And thankfully, I was expecting another legalese and I would have to dip into it. And not only was I doing this interview quickly, I had to run out the door. But I was so pleased because thanks to the attorney representing Michael Orr, Don Barrett, I was able to summarize my thoughts quite easily because the statement only had two lines. Marty Singer's statement on behalf of the Tuohys had more paragraphs than the horror statement had in lines. So in this case, I can read the entire statement. Again, this is attorney Don Barrett representing Michael Ohr. Quote, we try cases in the courtroom based on facts. We have confidence in our judicial system and in our client, Michael Orr. We believe that justice will be served in the courtroom and we hope to get there quickly, end quote. There is so much in those three lines I've never heard of Don Barrett, but I respect Don Barrett for these reasons. Just the brevity in that statement tells you everything that you need to know. About it. It's about brevity. It's about facts. It is a counter strike to Singer's sensationalized statement, and they're countering it with honesty and truth. It's his way of simply saying, we don't believe your statement. As a matter of fact, we think your statement is hyped up. We don't agree with your legal strategy of not just creating these lengthy, bombastic legal statements. Marty Singer is also notorious for handling the media, and he wants to bait Orr's team to go head to head with them in a media fight because he thinks he'll win. Now, Lizzo, when he represented Lizzo, that was somewhat successful because the dancers who sued Lizzo was represented by an attorney who was putting them in every single media interview he could get his hands on. So it became a media circus. And that's exactly what Marty Singer wants. Because when you compare both teams in a media setting, he's not putting Lizzo up for scrutiny, but he's providing plenty of news, you know, with the press, you know, plenty of fodder for the press. But meanwhile, the counter strategy is to bring out the dancers who are not media trained and they may lose credibility by being on air and telling their stories. There could be some positive aspect to it, but there's also a risk to it. This statement is saying, I'm not taking the bait. We are not taking the bait. We don't have to take the bait because the facts alone represent our case. He didn't have to say anything more because there was nothing else to say. Now, the quote that Elena used in the Today.com piece was mine, which I wish I would have rephrased. But I liked the sentiment. Like, I liked what I was trying to say here. And that was I said, someone like me, you know, who works in public relations, smells fear. So it's reasonable to assume that there would be a lot of information coming out about the transactional nature of the relationship. So I think that Marty Singer's statement is one that is based on a fear that more of the truth is going to come out. Now, do I fax in this? No, I do not. Can I back it up with any proof? I can't, other than anecdotally. I see this happen all the time. Okay, and why does this happen? And why do I think this? I've said before that public relations is just a spin on human relationship. I did an interview earlier today. I guess today's a big media day for me, but I did an interview where I said, you Know, I get too much praise for being someone who can predict things that will happen in the public relations realm. I'll predict what will be in a statement. Like, for instance, I was predicting what was gonna be in Lizzo's legal statement. Like, I predicted that she was gonna deny it. And I predicted other things in the celebrity world, in the celebrity realm. But it's easy. It's easy for me. You know why? And it's easy for any of you, Because I'm not predicting strategic public relations moves. I'm strategic in human moves and human behaviors. Humans repeat patterns, and people will repeat their patterns. When people are under stress, they all react in very similar ways. It takes a lot of control to not reflexively respond in a certain way. So I'm no genius. I'm just playing the odds, you know, that if someone, like, if someone gets kicked in the shin, they're going to say, ow. That's easy to predict. But there's something about Marty Singer's strategy that speaks a little bit more to me, and what that has to do with is the human behavior behind bullying. People who bully bully for a reason. They want to give the appearance that they're very strong, that they're very threatening. However, bullying is just another form of manipulation. It's another form of trying to wrest control when they've lost. Shows a lack of empathy, and it almost always comes with victimization. Whenever I see bully tactics, not only in PR but in life, I know that there is weakness and fear behind it. And that's what Marty Singer does. And I also think that this is an antiquated legal strategy. I do not think that we have the social media culture that tolerates bullish behavior. Why? Look at all the social media crises that happen out there. Look at all the people who are called out on social media, not just celebrities and people in the public eye, people who are just creators on social media. If they want to follow someone, everybody is going to let them know that they're wrong and they'll just, like, run them out. Happens all the time. So when you see this behavior, it is so easy to predict it. I think Marty Singer, the reason why he's been such a bull with Lizzo and with the Tuohys, is because he knows. He knows there's holes in the story. He knows that Michael Oher has a case. He knows that Lizzo's dancers has a case. He knows it. The only thing he can do, really, if he's going to do a case and try it in the court of public Opinion. He's got to go with this type of strategy in his mind. But the reason why I think he's out of step is because he doesn't take into consideration the social media culture. The legal bully strategy worked at a time like the Harvey Weinstein years, when you could bully editors into not doing a story or changing their story, taking things out of a story. He's a Hollywood fixer, remember, he can bully people to do certain things. He might tell an editor, okay, you're gonna bury this story, but I'm gonna give you some juice on someone else and you can run with that story. And why do they do this? Because look at the motivation. And if you can compare it. Now think in your life, have you ever met anyone? Well, I'm going to answer this for you. Yes. Have you ever met anyone going through a divorce? Yes. Have you ever met anyone going through a difficult divorce? Yes. Have you ever met anyone going through a difficult divorce where they cannot get divorced? That there is someone who desperately needs to get divorced, but it doesn't happen. You always wonder, like, why is it taking so long? Is it the money? Is it this? Like, why? What's going on? Like, what are they trying, you know, what are they tangling over so many times? What is happening? There is. There's a power imbalance. Someone has the goods, someone has the truth. Someone has been victimized, someone has been abused. Some, whether it's financial, physical, whatever it is, someone's been abused. And someone said, I've had it, I've had it, I'm done. I need to make a legal move to separate myself from this. Okay? I need this to stop. So then there comes legal action. Now, when that takes place, what is the motivation? Now someone who's like a bully or maybe has this narcissistic behavior, it always stems from this deep seated need for admiration and validation. If someone divorces them, they can't be admired. They worry that people are gonna look at them in a different way, that their true selves may be revealed. So they're gonna do whatever they can to stop that divorce. Because if that divorce stops, no one's going to think negative of me. They're going to do everything in their power to make sure that that stops, because they don't want that pain to happen. But meanwhile, the other person on the other end of it is being victimized within an inch of their life. And usually it's money, threats, reputation, it's all of it. It all comes down to bullying, all of it. And always, it almost always Happens. So take that case of the people that you know in your life. Oh, and by the way, if, you know, people like that reach out to the person who's trying to get divorced and they can't get the divorce, they're the ones that need help. But when those types of cases happen and that bullying behavior is happening, it means again that there's weakness and there's weakness to the case. Which is the reason why I think there's something more to the story other than Michael Oher just wanting to end his conservativeship. There's more to that story, and I think we can see that within the contrasting legal statements. When we have a legal bully, we have someone who's trying to cover things. And the reason why that doesn't work nowadays is because of public scrutiny. People can. Anyone can voice their opinion. But now on social media, people can do it on social media as well. Also, there's information to access. So many people can look at all the. Like when people go missing in crime talk and. And all the people who follow crimes, how many of them uncover stuff on their own? I interviewed. God, why was I interviewing this police officer? I can't remember why. And we were talking about the use of social media, and he said, oh, my goodness, we take in social media tips all the time because we know that these people are investigating things that our department simply doesn't have. The. Not the man. I don't want to say the manpower. What's the right way to say manpower? Human relations, power, people. Power to investigate. Also, there's the shift in public sentiment. When you're too bullish, people will side with the victim who's being bullied. Michael Oher is being bullied just like Lizzo's dancers. Also, when there is this opposition, it can organize on social media very, very quickly. And that is what is happening to the Tuohys, in my opinion. I think they have their strength in their Christian, conservative, maybe Republican publican, Fox News world. They're going to have their support. But overall, I think most people look at the story and say the Tuohys are taking advantage of Michael Oher. I think it seems very, very clear. So that's what I see when I see this bullying behavior. I think the Tuohys did take advantage of Michael Oher and Michael Oher, likely when he. So he's writing this book. And why is he writing this book? I think it's reasonable to assume that Michael Orr ran out of money. I don't think we know that, but he could very easily have money. Issues. Now you'll also notice another legal strategy that's happening with, you know, Marty Singer and with the other Tuohy attorneys. There's other attorneys. There is the same thing that you're going to happen in a lot of other legal cases there. They're going to fight about the low hanging fruit. They're going to dangle the low hanging fruit out there that the press will pick up. So for an example, they keep talking about this $15 million shakedown and they also get into a lot of details. That's the other thing that people do when they're in a case and they're on the wrong side of the case. They love to talk about details, details, details. In any argument, this goes into human relations, right? Any type of argument whatsoever. If someone focuses too much on the details, then they start to create details and they create things. They're always wrong. They're always trying to manipulate you by fear, by telling you, we are so smart, we remember every single detail. You cannot get this over because remember four years ago when you said this? I remember saying it. It's just a tactic. It's a bully tactic. So on the Tuohy side, you're going to notice there's a lot of details, lots of details about numbers and about the movie and how much money they made in the movie. And in that movie there is a discrepancy in the dollar amount. Now, I said that there was some legal things at play when the story broke last week. So let me go back to Sean Tuohy Jr. And his dad, Sean Tuohy. Now, I mentioned that SJ the Jr. Appeared on Barstool Radio. Now the father, Sean Tuohy was interviewed about the case. Now the Daily Memphan. Now, I'm actually the reason why I needed to dig in. This is because I'm doing a live interview with a local Memphis TV station about this case tomorrow. So this story. So reporter, a local story interviewed Sean Touhy. And it appears that Sean Tuohy only found out about Michael Oher's petition is when a friend of his sent him a link to the ESPN article. So it appears that that's how the Tuohys found out about this case. Now think about timing. So think about how quickly he needs to come up with a statement. So he did an interview. Either they reached him or maybe he reached out to him. I don't know. You know, he probably has a lot of connections down there. But he said in this article that the Tuohys did profit from the film, but he said, quote, we didn't make any money off the movie. And he said, well, Michael Lewis, who's the author of the book the Blind side, gave us half of his share. Everyone in the family got an equal share, including Michael. It was about $14,000 each. End quote. Think about that movie and think about how much money that movie made. Can we believe that the family members each made $14,000? And even if that was the case, why would each Tuohy family member get $14,000? I know they portrayed all of them, but the whole movie really is because of Michael Orr. Even then, let's say that's true. We'll give Michael Orr, like, 20,000, and then the family can split the rest of it, because the Tuohys have made millions of dollars, and. Which is what their lawyer is pointing out. Why wouldn't they give all the money to Michael Orr? Why wouldn't he get all of the money? So it's hard to believe also that it was only $14,000. Okay? So the first thing that the Tuohys did is they went to their family attorney. It's Steve Farisi. I think I'm getting that name correct. And he had said, and this was the first quote, the family would file a legal response to the allegations in the coming weeks. Okay, so we got weeks. In a social media world, we don't say anything is gonna be done in weeks. That tells me something. This is probably a very good local lawyer. I did look him up. So he's done, you know, big cases in the past. But that quote right there, that's a killer. That is a killer quote. You don't say, we're gonna do something weeks from now. But he had also said, and he had said this to NewsNation, that the lawsuit is completely false, and when the proof comes out, everyone will see the truth. And he added further, you know, numbers don't lie. Paper trails don't lie. And when the proper time comes and we present the truth, I think it will be evident to everyone of what's going on here, okay? Face value. You can look at them and think, oh, okay, wow. They have the proof. Okay? So that proof is going to come out. But if you start thinking about weakness and bullying and manipulation, what did the Tuohys not have at this moment? They did not have time, and they did not have access to what Michael Oars was really after here. They had to get their ducks in a row. They didn't know how much money they made. This movie came out years ago. They couldn't pull that off the top of their head. And the reason why is because the Tuohys have made so much money, not from just the restaurant businesses, but also capitalizing on the fame of the Blind side. Now, are they making a ton of money? We don't know. But we know that Leanne Tuohy is a keynote speaker. And keynote speakers make a lot of money. And somebody did send me how much money she was making, and I couldn't find it. It was in my DM somewhere. But on her site, her leantouhey.com, she sells merch. And her merch, like her T shirts, families don't have to match. You can get that in white, you can get that in black, and you can also get it in a long sleeve forest green. You can also get their turnaround book. You can get their turnaround journal. You can get their book in a heartbeat. The Leanne and Sean Tuohy story. You can get Making It Happen, the Tuohy Family foundation, the foundation ornament, which was really hideous looking, but maybe. Maybe a kid did it. I don't know. You can get the Turnaround wristband for $5. You can get a unicorn bubble wand for $30. Now, I know these aren't big price points, but what this is is a machine. It's like an online digital machine that is happening here. They're selling, they're leveraging, they're making money off of what this story is all about. What we don't really know and what a lot of people probably have not noticed and is that if you go back and look at their social media, if you go to Lee Ann Tuohy's website and you look at the photos, you're going to notice there are not a lot of photos of Michael Oher with the family, with the Tuohys. The last time they were together was when he was in the super bowl with the Ravens. But on social media, you might see photos of, like, SJ wishing Michael Oher a happy birthday. And it's a photo of Michael Oher, but they're not together. He's just using it. So the lawyer did admit that the family has been estranged for Michael Oher for 10 years. And I think that is what is really the root of the problem here. And this is what I think is happening. Now, it may sound as if, like, even from my tiktoks in this podcast episode, that I'm against the Tuohys. I'm not. I'm not saying that they've done anything illegal per se, at all, but I think it's very reasonable to assume that the reason why Michael Oher filed this petition at this time is he was probably facing money concerns. I'll leave it at that. We don't know if he doesn't have money. He could have money, but let's just say it's likely he started looking at his money. The fact that he has a book, it's, you know, when people think about books that you have to promote, yes, you're going to time books that you have to promote. But perhaps the reason why he wrote another book and had a ghostwriter on that book, I believe. I'm so sorry. I don't know that off the top of my head, but I know in a previous book he did have a ghostwriter. Perhaps the reason why is because he was looking at the money that he had, and he realized he didn't have money coming in. He's retired. He's a retired NFL player, and there wasn't a lot of money there. And so part of writing a book was probably a way to get money. And while he was writing that book, he started looking into the money or having accountants look into the money and say, well, wait a minute, Michael. Where'd all your money go? And that's when they start looking and they start digging. They start digging deeper. But speaking of digging deeper, what I think deeper happening here is that Michael, who is coming from if portrayed in the movie, you know, he had a rough childhood. He had a difficult relationship with his mother, with his family. He was a kid in search of a family. There's a lot of damage that happens when people grow up in those years. That's where the damage sets in. People like that can become abusers or they can become victims of abuse. They can become very trusting of people. They see people and they trust them. Face value. My personal opinion, what happened is I think the Tuohys, in doing the right thing, that they probably looked to him. I know some people wrote and said, oh, how easy would it be to. To bring in a very tall kid, athletic kid, of course, to adopt him. Cause, you know, he's gonna be a D1 athlete and have potential to go to the NFL and ride that fame. All right, maybe we don't know. But they did bring him in. I mean, they certainly did do that. And they took care of him and they housed him and clothed him and all of those things. But with this conservativeship, he thought that he was adopted. I know there's. In his books, he stated in some books that he knew that it was. He referred to it as a legal conservativeship. And sometimes he said, I was like family. So that's a little blurred there. But it's safe to assume that maybe he didn't know. You know, when you're 17 years old, 18 years old, you don't know what it means by legally, you know, the Tuohys very well could have wordsmithed their way around it to make him believe maybe they didn't outright lie, but certainly made him believe that he was family. Instead of saying, michael, you're like family, it's, Michael, you're family. I'm doing Sandra Bullock, doing Leontui. So I think there's a lot of hurt there, and I think that's what it comes from and what he's been watching these past 10 years that he's been estranged from the Tuohys. There's a reason why he's estranged. Something happened. And what likely could have happened, like why do people get estranged from their families is when they've been let down, when someone has hurt them, when they feel that they aren't being treated like a family anymore. He could be seeing all the keynotes that Lee Ann Tuohy's going to. He could be seeing all the events that the Tuohys are going to. He could be seeing all the accolades that the Tuohys are getting simply because they let him stay in their house for a year and then he went off to college. Maybe they paid for a school. Maybe not, maybe not. Maybe they didn't, because the Tuohys may have used his mother's income and maybe he got a scholarship. Anyone who's been in private school, we kind of know how this operates, so we don't know, but clearly there's a lot of hurt there. And that's why I think if you take the two legal statements, you combine them together and you contrast them and you extrapolate the language to identify the motivation behind it. The bullying, I think, gives us insight into the weakness of the Tuohy case. I think there is money that the Tuohy's made. Now they're all going to focus on the Blind side movie and how much money was made from that movie. So someone else who is dragged into this entire story because of the movie, because the Tuohys are talking about and focusing on the money made from the movie, which I think is a distraction tactic, they're gonna make it all about the movie and not from all the other money that they've received in keynotes and their foundation and so on and so forth. Is Michael Lewis, the author of the Blind side Now everyone's calling him for a quote. And now he's the guy who got stuck because Sean Tuohy is the one who said that Michael Lewis just gave us some money. So it sounds as if, you know, that the Tuohys, that no one got any money. All the money went to the studio, which, I mean, this is crazy. So what Louis is saying now, everyone should be mad. Everybody should be mad at the Hollywood studio system. It's outrageous how Hollywood accounting works. But the money is not in the Tuohys pockets. And it's interesting, in his quote, he said Michael Oher should join the writers strike. So Michael Lewis now has to deflect the negative press as well, because now people are scrutinizing the money from the Moneyball author of the Blind side. And so he's dragged into it. So again, when you get into too much of the details and when people start pointing fingers and what they're trying to do is they're pointing fingers away from the truth. And that's the reason why, based on everything that I just talked about, I believe Michael Oher in all of this. I don't believe the Tuohys are bad people, but I do think that they did take advantage of Michael Oher simply because of his. The fame that it brought them. I don't think that was their intention, but they liked the attention. Anybody's going to like the attention. Everyone's going to like getting the special tickets and the treatment and being known as the people in an incredibly popular and successful movie. All right, what can we take away, you know, from this type of a story? Anything that we can learn about the PR lessons or with the messaging. Number one, it would be consistency and transparency. Mixed messages can confuse the audience and damage your credibility. The Tuohys have a consistency problem. They absolutely do. Their stories, they drum the same stories over and over again. But some of those stories contradict earlier stories that they said. And it just depends on whose mouth it's coming out of. SJ could be saying one thing on barstool, and then Marty Singer is coming out with his statement, which completely contradicts what Sean Tuohy said in an interview in a Memphis newspaper. So without that type of consistency, it's going to weaken your story. Point number two, there's confidence versus emotion. So if you stick to the facts, stick to core values, especially during a crisis, the reputation piece, that needle is gonna lean on your side. Look to the statement made by Michael Oher's legal team. Oh which is just brilliant. I think this is my favorite legal statement of all time. It is my favorite so Michael Ohr's side confidence compared to Marty Singer and the Tuohys is emotion. And number three, it's all about managing expectations. It's very important to be mindful of the public's perception of the relationship and what is happening. Marty Singer is doing what he's done his entire career, which is trying to manage the expectation of the press coverage. But it is very difficult to do that in the age of social media, and it is very difficult to do that if it contrasts with reality in the case of the Tuohys and also in the case of Lizzo. Now, in every episode I leave you with one easy to remember takeaway to help you build that indestructible reputation. So here's your indestructible PR tip. The real life drama behind the Blind side provides rich material for analyzing PR and crisis management. And this is what it reminds us that in the age of social media and media scrutiny, every action and every statement counts. That's all for this week on the podcast. Thanks so much for tuning in. If you found this episode insightful or entertaining, please leave a review and share it with your friends and your colleagues. Until next time, stay indestructible. Bye for now.