Last week Kami Huyse wrote a post telling a different viewpoint of the FEMA fake video story from John “Pat” Philbin, APR, Ph.D., former Director of External Affairs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Philbin was the fall guy in the unfortunate incident. And it appears — at least from his story — that his hand should not have been painted such a violent color of red.
In our social media manifesto, the Fifth Estate is defined as:
The Fifth Estate — citizen media — brings to bear unreported yet relevant news, and questions stated facts. Marshall University Professor Stephen D. Cooper proposed the Fifth Estate concept in his 2006 book, “Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers as the Fifth Estate.” Cooper thought the new level of accountability caused by blogs was the emergence of a Fifth Estate in our social system. The blogosphere and, in my opinion, social network users keep the Fourth Estate honest.
Kami notes that a Google search for “John Philbin” FEMA nets over 2,500 results, and a similar search in the Google News archives brought back 22 publications. Any mention of Philbin is a negative one, blaming the ex_FEMA official for the YouTube incident.
Again, from Kami’s audio interview, according to Philbin, in the initial firestorm, he only spoke to three reporters. Philbin noted that a senior editor at a leading newspaper told him that she didn’t have time to do independent research into the incident.
It’s unfortunate that Philbin’s side of the story has not been told, especially given that the Washington Post led a lot of the coverage. But weaknesses like this tare more and more common, and a big reason why the media no longer enjoys complete trust.
We all know PR execs swarm the traditional media to place stories, corporations and politicians alike employ spinners to ensure favorable coverage, and decreasing budgets have brought newsrooms with less and younger journalists. The end result is less quality and bandwidth to accomplish great and complete journalism.
Kudos to Kami for this story. If you did follow the fake FEMA news conference, be sure to check out her post for the full story.
Geoff,
Two thoughts continue to concern me on this issue. Now we have Philburn’s side of it. He says, this is what happened. He says the press didn’t want to talk to him. Why should I believe his side of this story any more or less than the side that was reported. Kami may be a good judge of character, but she can be fooled. I have been fooled and have. (2) If Philburn had been using social media all along, then each of us could reach decisions based on a continued view of him over an extended period of time.
Those are good Qs, Shel. I can’t answer them either… Kami?
Thanks for spreading the news about Pat. I certainly was surprised when I heard his side of the story. As an aside, he is starting a new job, announced today, with PIER, a crisis communication platform.
Sorry my last comment didn’t address shel’s questions.
Shel; First, my interview with Pat was just that, an interview not a balanced news report. However, I challenge you to listen to the entire exchange and decide for yourself. I do take your criticism to heart though. I asked a respected columnist here in San Antonio to look at the write up and give me feedback. A second source was certainly in his recommendations.
As for participating in social media, Pat wasn’t doing that, but if you listen to the interview, he was working from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. or later every day, AND he has a family. He didn’t have time and I’ll give him that. But I agree that having a public record BEFORE such an incident gives you something else to lean on besides the goodwill of a blogger that might bend an ear to your story.
As for other reading and research on the issue, you can look at my FEMA delicious tag, http://del.icio.us/kamichat/FEMA and you can read the follow up story in the Washington Post (also tagged in the FEMA tag in delicious) that cites the investigation and how that went down. Let’s just say that others were implicated as making the decision to move forward with the press conference without media. Unfortunately, as these things often are, it was buried in the paper, I think page A18.
Finally, I would also challenge you to ask some of these questions to Pat himself. He is subscribed to the comment thread on the original post at Communication Overtones and has agreed to field any question (and he has already answered a few). I am actually amazed at how few people chose to ask him questions.
Kami,
I was fearful that my comments would take us down this avenue and I did not wish for that. I did listen to your interview and thought it was an excellent piece of journalistic work. I do not challenge you. I think Philburn came across as credible and likeable. It influences me that you were their and you believed him and you have credibility with me.
But your interview did not convince me that he was set up. I have some experience in interviewing people in government and I have been moved by their passion and their sincerity and was equally shocked when I would later find out that I had been lied to.
It is among the many reasons I left public service after only two years. It also has to do with why I grew jaundiced in an earlier career as a political reporter.
Some of the worst people are the best liars. Some of the best people are the victims of lies. As a result of your interview I see the two perspectives of this situation.
I don’t know which case is true, nor am I interested enough to pursue a search for additional sources. My journalistic background does make me question that particular fact. During my 12 years as an editor and reporter, we investigated every charge that we got it wrong. For one thing, it made for good followup readership on a controversial story. For another, finding an innocent victim of government conspiracies to defame were just too good a story to pass up. It made me wonder why he was talking to you and not the Times Post,or 60 Minutes, organizations who have the staff and resources to investigate these two sides.
I’m sorry if you felt I was taking you on. I’m sorry on a personal note if you feel my expressing doubts about someone you so obviously like makes you feel I attacked.
That was not my intention.
Oh no, I didn’t feel attacked, I was just trying to make a complete response. I agree that it would make a GREAT story for 60 minutes or others. The reason he talked to me is because…well…I asked. Amazing how that works sometimes.
In my opinion he wasn’t trying to assign blame, just to say that there is a difference between taking responsibility for something and being THE one to blame.
As for the possibility of Pat being a liar, I suppose anyone could be a liar and I certainly can’t tell you he wasn’t. However, he didn’t strike me that way, he was very open to all of my questions and didn’t dodge anything I asked.
Glad to see everyone is kosher on this one. I’ve heard mixed things on the back channel here in DC, but nothing anyone wants to stick their name on, so I think it maybe gossip.
Thank you for the comments. There are couple of observations that I offer (as the subject of this conversation).
First, I disagree with the suggestion that I was set up. I was not. Neither do I agree with the insinuation that this unfortunate set of circumstances was the result of conspiracy. It was not to the best of my knowledge. Clearly, there were actions as the Director that I should have taken, and I have not been shy about articulating these. But my errors were not the result of an intent to deceive, and it was the media who characterized this as a fake press conference.
On a more academic note, a press conference, in the traditional form as I learned it, allows for a wide open back and forth with no topics off limits. This was billed simply as a Briefing to update media on the Federal response to the California wildfires. The information that was briefed by FEMA’s Deputy Administrator was factual.
Second, I did talk to 3 reporters of leading news organizations who invested the time to contact me. I was not hiding. A simple yahoo people search in Virginia of Pat Philbin reveals my home address and phone number. However, at the end of the conversations, it was clear to me that their focus was on assigning blame and responsibility, not understanding the facts. To them, I was simply another political hack “flacking” for the Administration. The media were quick to assume, as are many, that because FEMA’s image was so badly tarnished, it was seeking to pull a fast one. Second sourcing used to be a fundamental principle of journalism. Based on my personal experience over time, fewer and fewer media seem to view this as important.
Third, as to why I did not go directly to a leading news organization to respond to the allegations that essentially were not accurate, I offer the following. My first instinct was to protect my family, so keeping the story active and my photo on the home page of AOL was not in my family’s best interest (or so I thought at the time). I also assumed (incorrectly) that my superiors would set the record straight by releasing the results of the inquiry. The problem with this perspective is that it is naive. My departure from the organization provided an easy solution to their dilemma: an agency made a mistake and someone must be held accountable. As the Director, I did assume responsibility for the lapses in judgment by junior staff and myself…that is what leaders do in my opinion. But without full knowledge of what happened that resulted in the unfortunate incident (I had already departed FEMA), I did not believe pointing fingers was the right thing to do. Even if I had full knowledge of exactly what actions were taken when, my focus would have been on making sure it never happened again–not a looking for victim. I also understood the potential professional ramifications of stepping up the plate, which is why I contacted my prospective next employer prior to reporting onboard to discuss the situation and offered that if he desired to reconsider the offer, I understood.
As for the possibility of me being a liar, don’t take my word for it, ask those who know me, or who have worked for me over the years. I am happy to provide references–simply email me at Philbin.john@gmail.com.
At the end of the day, this was–in the words of a professional associate–a Washington “dust-up.” It had all the right ingredients: an agency under extreme scrutiny with a target on its back, a political environment that is venomous, and someone who didn’t fight back, which lead conspiracy theorists to conclude that there was/is “more to the story.”
There simply isn’t more to this story. Well intentioned, overworked, caring people made mistakes that resulted in a media frenzy fueled by people’s pre-dispositions against an embattled agency that has been working extraordinarily hard since Katrina to do the right thing. But doing the right thing is only half the battle as I have come to appreciate. You also have to communicate effectively as well.
Best regards,
Pat
I’d like to weigh in on Shel’s comments. Shel, you may recall I quoted you in my book Now Is Too Late and we had some conversation on my blog crisisblogger. I am the founder and CEO of PIER and Pat’s new employer. We have known Pat for a number of years because of our work with the Coast Guard. If you look at my blog post about the FEMA incident from day one, I doubted Pat’s involvement as it was portrayed because of what we knew of him. Then, we met in DC a couple of days after the incident. I can tell you, if Pat is a liar, then I am a fool. Anyone with 2500 negative posts about him the blog world is a little toxic to say the least, but we hired him (and I’m very glad we did) because he is a man of exceptional integrity who also shares our vision for increasing the level of trust in the world.
Respectfully,
Gerald