Are the news media friends or foes of today's university president? Unlike some in my profession -- I am a lawyer -- I like to give short, direct answers. So, here goes: It depends.
The media can be of great assistance to a college or university. Positive coverage can help build an institution's reputation, assist in the fund-raising process, and help attract top students, professors, and administrators. Feature stories can highlight new programs and help the university communicate with the community in which it operates.
On the other hand, the media can also be a president's worst nightmare. Take the case of Mark Perkins of Towson University in Maryland. Perkins had enjoyed a 25-year-long career in higher education before he became president of Towson on July 1, 2001. In my view, the daily newspaper in Baltimore, The Sun, began to criticize him almost as soon as he took office. Some of the negative coverage was petty. But the newspaper finally struck pay dirt when it reported that the university had spent about $860,000 -- $360,000 more than the regents had budgeted --- on refurbishing a newly purchased presidential home that Perkins and his family were to occupy.
As local newspapers often do,The Sun raised a hue and cry as though the money being spent on the presidential home was somehow a personal perk for the president. When newspapers and others publish such stories, they often fail to point out to their readership that, in reality, the university is trading one asset (cash) for another (a building). However, newspaper stories that allege mismanagement of public money and somehow imply that a president is personally receiving an undeserved benefit, will most certainly gain a lot of public attention and will be damaging to both the president and the university. In the Towson case, such stories led to the president and the University parting ways.
Of course there are occasions when a newspaper with a strongly held point of view can end up looking quite ridiculous. That is what happened to the St. Petersburg Times when it seemed to continually take the side of former professor Sami Al-Arian against Judith Genshaft, president of the University of South Florida.
Genshaft has had an outstanding record of achievement at the university, at least according to its trustees. While that, in itself, should not make her immune to valid media criticism, the St. Petersburg Times really overdid it in story after story supporting Al-Arian, who was suspected of helping to finance international terrorism.
The newspaper either missed the signals in the Al-Arian case, or was too intent on criticizing the university's leadership to see them, or both. In any event, the paper continued to criticize every effort the university made to separate Al-Arian from the institution. Then, on February 20, 2003, Al-Arian was arrested pursuant to a 120-page federal grand jury indictment -- full of gory details -- alleging that he was, and had been for a while, an international figure in financing terrorism.
Today he sits in jail awaiting trial or deportation. As for Genshaft, fortunately she had the full support of her Board of Trustees throughout, so she continues to serve as president.
While it doesn't involve a president, the case of Mike Price, the former University of Alabama football coach, is instructive. Price was recruited from Washington State University in December 2002 to be the new football coach at the University of Alabama. Several months later, on his own time, he played in a golf tournament in Florida. While there, he became drunk in a topless bar. Unfortunately for him, Sports Illustrated got wind of this, interviewed people who said they were in the bar at the same time, and printed additional details that made this writer blush. I hasten to add that Price has disputed many of these details and allegations. Nevertheless, as this story reverberated within the state of Alabama, it became clear that the coach was history.
Like a celebrity, politician, or even a star athlete, university presidents are always "on duty," even when they might think they are on their own time. Indeed, for a modern university president, there really is no such thing as being "off duty" when it comes to finding oneself, one's family, or one's life style in the public eye.
Presidents ought not despair. Many newspapers have dedicated higher education reporters who are anxious to learn as much as they can about their local universities. The more they know about the university, the better they can do their job. This provides the president -- aided by the university's media relations staff -- with an opportunity to create or establish a cooperative relationship with the news media, to the mutual advantage of both.
Clearly, a key element of effective media relations is a strong and close working relationship between the president and chief public-relations official. If the two of them, working together, are a reliable resource for the media, "good news" will follow.
Whether the local reporters covering higher education are dedicated or not, the president should always treat the members of the media as they might any valued constituency. Informal lunches or coffees are a valuable way to establish good rapport with reporters. Including them in important university events will further develop the relationship.
At the same time, it is absolutely necessary that the president always be honest with the media. There is nothing that will sour a relationship more quickly and completely with a newspaper reporter than a lie. While I do not generally recommend taking the "no comment" route in communicating with reporters, it is far better to issue a terse "no comment" than it is to present the reporter with an untruth.
It behooves a president to cultivate good working relationships with the journalists in his or her city. Presidents who do not follow such a path do so at their own risk. But it is important to remember that exposure does not come without its risks. Being on the "radar screen" applies to both good and bad news.
An example of someone who has had a very positive relationship with reporters for many years is Lawrence J. DeNardis, in his 13th year as president of the University of New Haven. Year after year DeNardis has made the media one of his top priorities, as he has transformed the university from a commuter college to a flourishing four-year residential campus. He not only worked hard to bring reporters along with him, but requested and received their assistance in building the reputation of the university. In addition, DeNardis has developed nationally recognized programs and established key partnerships with government and business leaders. Of course his background as a five-term state senator, a U.S. congressman, and a senior federal official in the Reagan Administration helped to fine tune his appreciation for the value of the media in achieving these goals.
Are there certain topics a president ought not to discuss directly with the media? I believe there are. One of these is the president's own compensation. While reporters rarely point this fact out in their stories, the president's salary and benefits are set not by the president, but by an independent board of trustees. The appropriate authority for a reporter to discuss the president's compensation with is the head of the governing board or of its compensation committee.
And since the board, not the president, sets the president's compensation, it should be the board, and not the president, who defends it if it is attacked or questioned by a reporter or a columnist. The fact of the matter is that no matter what the president says about his or her own compensation, it will always sound self-serving.
So, are the news media friends or foes? In large measure it depends on the president and his or her sophistication in working with them.
