Political blogger Jonathan Bernstein and others have started a list of stories and outcomes that reporters and political junkies keep hoping for, but which are highly unlikely.  Perfect examples include a live filibuster, a brokered convention, a "truly nonpartisan leader" and a serious third-party presidential candidate.

When I read or watch political news, it makes me crazy when these scenarios are trotted out as if there is a slim chance any of them will occur. Consider the brokered convention story line. The last convention that went beyond a single ballot was in 1952 when the Democrats picked Adlai Stevenson. Yet, as the Washington Post noted in January 2008, reporters often succumb to "brokered convention frenzy." (In this case, a Post writer contended the GOP was headed for a brokered convention in Minnesota.)

Why are so much ink, bytes and broadcast time devoted to stories that aren't going to happen? Is it because we are all attracted to the unusual more than the usual? Partly. Is it about ratings and readership? Certainly. But here's another reason. Far-fetched scenarios such as brokered conventions have become a form of conventional wisdom; they are expected narratives for journalists covering campaigns.

In the same way, reporters covering business have their own volume in the Book Shelf of Media Narratives. Unfortunately, many of these expected story lines are negative. When it comes to business involvement in politics, nearly all of them are negative.

Common narratives claim businesses bribe politicians, all lobbyists are unethical, or that corporations don't care about the public good. These story lines are easy to find when you skim newspapers and websites - especially with distrust of politics and business so high.

While each of these narratives may seem as improbable as a brokered convention, that's not the public's prevailing view.  Much of the blame goes, of course, to people such as Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham, whose actions damaged everyone's reputation. But if you look at the years preceding these scandals, negative attitudes about government have been high ever since Watergate. The familiarity of the corporate corruption theme has helped to make it widespread.

In addition, reporters rarely begin a story without a thesis in mind. The thesis is often designed to show conflict ("Parties Argue Over Healthcare Reform") or contrast ("Obama Calls for Unity, but His Party is Divided"). That's the nature of journalism. But if this conflict-or-contrast thesis is layered over a critical narrative, the results aren't going to be pretty.

This is one of the main reasons why politicians and CEOs get so frustrated with media coverage. Like it or not, there's not much news value in stories reporting that a senator voted his conscience or that a corporation won the Most-Admired-Company award. I've had reporters tell me that a positive story about lobbying or corporate good works couldn't make it past their editor's desk because "it didn't sound right."

So, how do you get your message across when the conventional wisdom says - to put it bluntly - that you work for a lying, cheating band of scoundrels?

The first thing to do is to be aware of how your actions and statements support negative narratives. Every corporate act - from awarding bonuses, to announcing plant closures, to opening a business in a new country - helps to define one's reputation.  Once again, when business news is made, reporters almost always investigate whether there is conflict ("Big Box Store Drives Local Lumber Yard out of Business") or contrast ("'Green' Company Produces Large Amount of Waste"). Every company and its communications department ought to try very hard not to fit the description of the corporate bad guy.

The second thing you can do is to pitch a counter-narrative - as long as you have the evidence to back up your point of view. Sometimes, after a conventional-wisdom narrative has appeared for a while, a journalist will be open to writing an article that turns that so-called wisdom on its ear. If you have a good story to tell and you don't overstate your case, you can actually make positive news. A firm, for example, can be positioned as the environmentally responsible chemical company or the regional bank that knows how to safeguard the public's money.

The trick is figuring out when the media market is so saturated with one story line that reporters are open to a new approach. This is why, during a political campaign, advisers don't want a candidate to "peak too early." They want their man or woman to play the role of fast-rising challenger for as long as possible. As we all know, front-runners get lots of positive coverage, but over time they invite more scrutiny as reporters try to overturn conventional wisdom.

For Corporate America, the bad news is the media-consuming public hasn't grown tired of the anti-business narrative - though there are early signs that attitudes are changing. The good news is that political and social winds do shift eventually. Companies that have acted in good faith, built healthy relationships with the media and understand stakeholder expectations will be in a better position to rebuild their reputations.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.