When No Publicity Better Serves Your Reputation

It has been almost two weeks since the election and the media is still trying to give free publicity to Kamala Harris. Newsflash: she lost.

 

The old adage of “bad publicity is better than no publicity” is the mantra of the last several days of the current news cycle. What do these editors think? That somehow talking about the Kamster will somehow change the result?

Here is another update for y'all: there are no do-overs after the election. In fact, it IS over when it is over. (With apologies to Yogi Berra)

The latest “Kammy-news” involves the money her campaign spent and paid to Oprah for producing the Town Hall in September. Some say it was $1MM, others say it was $2.5MM. 

WHO CARES?

But Oprah claims SHE didn’t get the money. It was paid to her production company, Harpo Productions. A fine distinction, as if she would never profit from it.

“I was not paid a dime. For the live-streaming event in September, my production company, Harpo, was asked to bring in set design, lights, cameras, crew, producers and every other item necessary (including the benches and the chairs we sat on) to put on a live production. I did not take any personal fee,” Winfrey wrote on Instagram.

That may have been all well and good, but the New York Post reported that there were other celebrities and Influencers who WERE paid appearance fees to publicly endorse Kacklin’ Kammy. 

Doesn’t someone endorse a candidate because they agree with the candidate’s position? Not because they are getting paid?

Looks like a little different version of buying votes to me. A mere technicality.

If the media continues to give Kammy all this free publicity, even more bad publicity will be the by-product. Maybe no publicity would be better, especially if she wants to secure her reputation for a future campaign.

Because if this continues, any remaining reputation will be in tatters, ready for incineration.