The Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson yesterday responded to the allegations (see previous
post) that he had threatened the Managing Director Jan Scherman of TV4 because of what he felt was a biased coverage of the election process. I was curious to see what Persson, one of the country’s most clever communications strategists, would use as a tactic, especially since he previously had stated that he did not remember what he had said during the meeting.
Persson’s tactic seemed to be to discredit what Scherman said with that it was unlikely that he would behave in that manner. “I am not inexperienced, why would I threaten a leading representative from media during the final phases of an election campaign?” Persson repeatedly used the phrase “that does not bear the stamp of the truth” about the different claims.
His second tactic was a "we're buddies"-tactic, sort of "we are buddies, it is unlikely that I would talk to him like that". The worst thing for a journalist is to be seen as friends with the people they are set to watch, and that type of friendship with Persson forced veteran journalist Eric Fichtelius to quit the leading news show on Swedish tv.
As a communications professional it is very interesting to see how in a conflict like this, where one part remembers what was said, and the other part doesn’t, the forgetful guy will emerge as the winner, because I am convinced that Persson will win this battle, even though Scherman halfheartedly fought back again today saying that they are obviously not friends because Persson couldn't pronounce his last name correct.
Lesson learned, pick your fights and if you take on a better communicator who also is in a higher position of authority than you are, you’d better have some hard evidence to support your claims or you will be run over