We Did Not Vote For Bush

Six members of the US Bridge Federation (USBF) championship team stood on a victory platform in China with a handwritten sign that read “We Did Not Vote for Bush”. The ensuing media storm was publicity that the USBF hoped to avoid, and the chronology of the story makes a good case study in both crisis PR and advocacy PR.

On Saturday October 13, six U.S. bridge players were awarded medals at a ceremony in Shanghai. The players had growing unease leading up to the ceremony, as bridge competitors from around the world expressed criticism of US foreign policy, particularly related to the war. The women decided to scribble “We did not vote for Bush” on the back of a menu, and to both wave American flags (to demonstrate their patriotism) and hold the sign (to demonstrate opposition to Bush’s war policies). It was a last minute gesture of solidarity with their international bridge comrades. There is no indication that any of the women involved imagined in those spontaneous moments prior to taking the stage that they were creating an anti-war image that would be seen around the world.

In response to critics of the six women, USBF held emergency board meetings and set in motion disciplinary proceedings. The board established a hearing date on November 30 at a public bridge venue, which left plenty of time for the story to spin out of control. They also offered a settlement so punitive that these professional players would be effectively banned from their sport (and livelihood), and even insisted that the players identify which woman had originally conceived of the idea. It was this action that guaranteed public outcry; the “settlement” appeared overreaching at best, vindictive at worst. Once the issue hit the headlines, the USBF responded to a New York Times article by issuing a further public condemnation of the players. Only after subsequent worldwide media coverage did they stop all disciplinary proceedings.

It’s a classic story of organizational leaders not taking into account the wider environment in which they were making decisions. Even if their strategies had worked within the confines of the professional bridge world, the board members had entered political territory where the rules of engagement are different. More than lawyers and discliplinary committee members, they desperately needed experts to help them understand broader implications.

What sparked the kind of media attention that ultimately forced the USBF to back off from its disciplinary proceedings was not the act of protest itself, but the organization’s rigid response to the protest. In short - the USBF put the ingredients in place for a national public interest story. All this happened despite specific conversations at early board meetings that prioritized avoiding a public relations debacle.

The culture of rulemaking and procedure in the competitive bridge industry clashed with the realities of public relations. Bridge is an industry that embraces specific and detailed rules and procedures. The bylaws for the World Bridge Federation, for example, specify exactly what tone board members must use when speaking to staff, including “Board Members desiring to communicate with staff on all business matters other than committee matters are encouraged to use e-mail whenever practicable; however, telephone calls are permitted.” Engaging the media requires just the opposite instincts - it can be unruly, unregulated, and require nimble reaction.

Even without understanding the heated political environment of war protest, the board ought to have been very concerned about media strategies when team captain Gail Greenberg retained former ACLU lawyer Norman Siegal. Greenberg’s message was about international politics, and anyone reading public opinion polls would easily agree that many people around the world take a dim view of U.S. foreign policy today. The USBF continued to proclaim that “this is not a free speech issue”, but they never had a message that truly resonated in the public arena.

The New York Times was the major catalyst for the media firestorm. Stephanie Strom published her first article on the subject on November 13. The story spread quickly, including appearances by team members on the ABC Early Show and MSNBC. The French players issued a statement of support for the U.S. team members. Opponents sounded vicious - the players were called “traitors”, “seditious”, “juvenile”, “immature” and “stupid”. Bloggers wrote extensively and editorial boards mulled the issue - the Dallas Morning News editorial board members split and could not issue a decision, with some editors finding the punishment too harsh and others finding that part of protest includes ramifications such as these.

The USBF caved on November 20, just over a month after it had begun disciplinary discussions. The hearings scheduled for November 29 were cancelled, and the New York Times wrote a wrap up story. Given just how mired the USBF had become in a media firestorm, the agreement was the best public relations move it could make. Chances are, however, that the issue will remain alive as a footnote to the year’s coverage of war protest. The image of the bridge women holding the scribbled anti-Bush sign is too intriguing to fade completely.

Player Jill Levine summed up her motivations on MSNBC: “This was my way of saying that while I am very proud of my country, I am not proud of the things my country are presently doing.”