Grade Edwards’ ‘Nightline’ interview: How did he do?

Put politics aside for a minute.

If you saw the interview that ABC’s “Nightline” did with former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday night, tell us how you think he did from a PR standpoint. If you missed the interview, you can watch it in two parts here and here.

I don’t care if you think “he’s only human” or that cheating on his wife was “despicable.”

Was the interview convincing? Will it put an end to this story? Did his answers come across as honest? Was he justified in not answering certain questions about the affair with campaign staff member Rielle Hunter? (“Did you ever tell her that you loved her?”) Does he score points for asking his wife, Elizabeth, not to be present during the interview?

Opinions from crisis counselors and other PR pros seem to be all over the map. Crisis counselor Jonathan Bernstein, who was my guest during a teleseminar a few years ago on “How to Keep the Media Wolves at Bay,” says on his blog:

“I think John Edwards did one heck of a job of ‘packaging’ his confession of infidelity in a manner that will quickly put the issue behind him—as long as there are no other skeletons in the closet…”

PR guy Jerry Brown says he thinks Edward blew it.

“He left at least two big loose ends that promise to keep the story alive awhile longer:

“He offered to take a paternity test to prove Hunter’s child isn’t his, but the test hasn’t taken place and the mother says there won’t be one. That will keep the story alive awhile longer and, without a paternity test, there will always be lingering doubts. Out of Edwards’ control? Perhaps. But he’s had several months to work on this issue.

“Hunter reportedly has received payments for some period of time, up to $15,000 a month according to one report that claims the payments were hush money to keep her quiet. Edwards says he didn’t make any payments to Hunter and that any payments that were made were without his knowledge. If she was paid, who made the payments and why promises to keep the story alive. If any laws were broken, the story could become decidedly worse.”

Hounds, what do you think?

P. S. Notice when the story broke: on a Friday. Typically, that’s the best day to break a bad news story. Did breaking the story on the same day of the Olympics ceremony work in his favor?

Crisis CommunicationsHow to Interview
Comments (10)
Add Comment
  • Yves Marie Danie Baptiste

    Well, hmmmm….let’s see.

    John Edwards came out and addressed the issue on TV. I believe this tipped in his favor. If he had remained silent for too long…it would have given the media more bait to keep the story alive.

  • Ann Gibbon

    As long as the Internet, blogs, chat rooms and Larry King’s team are around, it doesn’t matter whether Edwards made his TV appearance on a Friday afternoon while Beijing’s opening ceremonies were on or at 2 am Christmas morning. King and the gang at CNN will dissect this until there are no more entrails left to pick at, and they’ll still come up with something.

    I did like how Edwards did NOT bring his wife onto the show. Now whether that was her decision or his is not known but I liked his answer that this was his fault and she did nothing wrong. Key message, highly practised? Maybe, but it worked for me.

  • Linda

    The Olympics turned out not to be such great timing – most of us were able to flip back and forth between channels easily as the countries marched in for hours.

  • CHEpr

    It was awful. He evaded every question in a way that I think he FELT was contrite. In trying to excuse his affair as evidence of an out-of-control ego, his ego shined too brightly.

    Plus, and let’s be honest here, the one-liner clarification about his affair occuring during remission of Elizabeth’s cancer was shallow and horrid. He cheated on his dying wife and tried to spin it with the rest of us by boxing in the timeframe to something he felt was easier on the palate. NO GOOD. He is OVER.

  • Mary Carson

    Too bad it didn’t break during the Democratic Convention. So sorry, I have no pity on him and I agree with the Washington Post that he isn’t 99.9 pure. He is a womanizer, with a faithful wife and beautiful family and is in the public eye. When he decided to run for office, he gave up his privacy and needed to be on his good behavior. If his mistress is receving $15,000 per month, someone was sending her money and it is Edwards who is wealthy. Too bad our politicians aren’t more savy about life.

  • Karen Gross

    I always thought highly of Edwards. This all leaves me greatly disappointed in him. Now I think I know why he didn’t pursue the Democratic nomination more aggressively. He knew it would all come out. So, before he does anything else, he figured to get it over with while the media will be giving the presidential election getting most of the attention. Sadly, indiscriminate behavior is epidemic in politics. Kennedy kept it quiet; Clinton was brain dead. Others are less well documented. He doesn’t need company like that if he seeks a political career. I felt so good with his support of his wife during her cancer treatment. So much for that.

  • Sonia Coleman

    Overall, I thought John Edwards handled the interview well. I thought the move to appear alone was strong, especially when he said emphatically that he was wrong. Whether or not his political career will survive is unclear, but I think his candid interview will calm down this particular media frenzy, unless more juicy details about the affair are unveiled.

  • Diana Ennen

    Hi Joan:

    Thanks for the opportunity to share on this topic. I can see the reasoning for trying to break news you know has to break at the same time of a major media event such as the Olympics, as then it hopefully won’t get the 24/7 coverage as it would if nothing major was happening.

    However, as a publicist I would never advise my clients to do that. Most of the people I spoke to were angry that he did it then. Some even more angry at the timing then of the entire situation. We have a few weeks every so many years where we get to feel good and rejoyce as a nation with other countries. Why take that time to air American’s dirty laundry. I think Americans need those feel good moments and you shouldn’t take it away for political gain.

    How did he do? Yikes! For a statement that damaging, he should have thought it through a lot more. He had the time. To say things such as it’s not my families fault. Of course it’s not. It’s yours.

    I like many were very disappointed in the news. He did seem to be one of the good guys. Thanks! Diana

  • Sondra

    So many lies during the interview.

    It doesn’t make sense that he knows nothing about the money given to the woman. It doesn’t make sense that he met with an ex-lover to talk about keeping a long-dead romance quiet in a hotel room, at 3am, with the baby there. Looking forward to a DNA test sounded good until Hunter’s lawyer quickly responded that there will be no DNA test. Then it sounded like his offer and her response had been set up in advance.

    Later interviews by family and friends disputing the start and finish dates of the affair cast more doubt, but, even without conflicting stories from others, he said nothing believable. Another smooth talking lawyer with a fool for a client.

  • Carmin Wharton

    I think Edwards handled himself well during the interview. Bob Woodruff’s body language and line of questioning led me to believe that he didn’t believe everything Edwards said. I didn’t believe everything Edwards said. While I applaud his admission of guilt (only after the National Inquirer cornered him in a bathroom) – better late than never I guess – I do not believe what he said about:

    1. The length of time of the affair.
    2. No knowledge about the payments made to the mistress by his lawyer friend.

    I also believe the firmness and conviction with which he stated he is willing to take a DNA test was as firm as it was is because the woman has been placed in a favorable financial position in exchange for her not to ever agree to a DNA test.

    But you know what? My thoughts, assessment and beliefs really don’t matter. John Edwards did not commit a crime against anyone but his wife and if Elizabeth is willing to forgive him and move forward, so be it.

    Unfortunately we put public figures up on pedastals and then we are reminded that they are mere humans having human experiences. For some reason we are shocked when they commit adultery, when they divorce and when they die. Why are we shocked? After all, they are human.

    Oh, one more thing that I strongly believe is that our bodies will often reveal negative things going on in our lives. Having said this I can’t help but wonder if Edwards’ admittance to cheating contributed to Elizabeth’s cancer coming out of remission. Just wondering and also praying for her and their family.

    Carmin Wharton, The Relationship Teacher