Transparency, privacy, national security–let the great debate ensue

Posted on June 11, 2013 by gbaron

We knew it would come to this. Those cheerleaders for openness in all things, transparency, full disclosure (including me) sooner or later would run into the problems associated with it. Today our government is being wrenched with the question of privacy of citizen information. The president talks about striking a balance between national security and right to privacy. But who is to decide what balance should be struck? And how can broadbased surveillance be effective if everyone knows the formula for choosing whose activity will be monitored and whose not?

In the news business, similar questions are being raised. This is beyond the tracking of phone calls to try to stop security leaks (and damaging political leaks). Connecticut just passed a law that makes it illegal to make public previously available photos, images, audio reports relating to any homicide. News media will no longer be able to show much about homicides in Connecticut:

The bill as approved exempts photographs, film, video, digital or other images depicting a homicide victim from being part of the public record “to the extent that such record could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the victim or the victim’s surviving family members.”

One can understand the sensitivity of Connecticut since this legislation is a direct result of the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But, does this overreach? What the heck will local TV do when they can’t show images and videos involving homicides?

Personally, I avoid local TV because they seem obsessed with crimes, particularly crimes against children. But, since they measure the success of their offerings hour by hour, no doubt this kind of coverage is what their audiences demand. And if the public demands it, how will it work to make it illegal?

The royal family couldn’t keep the fact that Prince Harry was sent to Afghanistan, despite the full cooperation of all the news media. Some blogger in Australia provided the world the information. Will passing a law keep these images from the public? Or did the Connecticut legislature handcuff the local news media, giving one more huge advantage to the anonymous social media hack who gets his/her hand on the graphic image or video?

Is Snowden a hero or traitor? Does disclosing the widespread personal surveillance going on in our government constitute an act of patriotism, or as President Putin seems to suggest by his generous offer of asylum, an act of treachery?

These are difficult questions, but some of the most important facing our world today. The mere reality of a complete connected world with minimum of government censorship means that transparency is a reality, in many cases, a very uncomfortable reality. I for one, opt for freedom. But freedom demands responsibility, and we can be assured that there will always be some yahoo that acts irresponsibly. That’s where laws come in. Unfortunately, like Connecticut’s well-intended law, the irresponsibility of a few leads to a loss of freedom for all. Ah, yes, a balance must be struck.

Posted in Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What does a “nano news” weather forecast look like?

Posted on June 10, 2013 by gbaron

I’ve been having some fun defining nano-news (my best try for what comes after instant news). Nano news as I’ve discussed here is realtime information sharing from the source–from the scene, the front-lines or by real time sharing of police scanners and the like. Unfiltered, unprocessed, unapproved–but almost as fast as quantum entangled particles–or at least the speed of light.

But, what does a nano-news weather report look like? Had to laugh when I saw Jim Garrow’s posting of a weather report billboard. Captures the idea of nano news far better than I can explain.

 

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is “Breaking News” a lie?

Posted on June 7, 2013 by gbaron

Now this is intriguing. WDRB Fox affiliate in Louisville put out a promo for their news by very straightforwardly addressing the “deception” at the heart of much of today’s news coverage. I love it. Calling Breaking News a lie, an advertising ploy, a trick. The video says “breaking news is seldom actually breaking and often isn’t even news.” They further say they never use that term and believe “the relationship you have with your television station shouldn’t begin with a deception.”

Then it provides some guidance for viewers to help them evaluate news coverage by asking three questions: Is it important to me? Is it really breaking? Is it even news?

Screen Shot 2013-06-07 at 11.28.40 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While clearly this is “an advertising ploy” of their own–and I have no way of telling if their claims of doing real journalism are born out by the facts–I find this approach very encouraging. It shows at least some in the media are concerned about the huge erosion in trust in news coverage. It shows they are willing to directly confront the real issue–which is the length to which news competitors will go to attract an audience and the consequences of those errant strategies. But most important, this kind of message helps audiences take a step back and ask important questions about coverage.

That in my mind is the only real answer to the very serious problems with today’s mainstream journalism.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Defining “nano news”

Posted on June 4, 2013 by gbaron

In a recent keynote presentation I made to an emergency management conference and in a post on Crisis Comm over at emergencymgmt.com I used the term “nano news.” Since it has been referenced lately by others I thought some further thoughts here might be worthwhile.

Webster defines “news” as ” a report of recent events.” “Nano” is one billionth of a second. Nano has come to refer to anything very small. So what is very small news?

In the Boston bombing manhunt one new feature of reporting news came to the wider public attention. This was the quite wide-spread use of police scanner apps, websites like “broadcastify” and linking police scanners to the internet through Ustream. What all of these methods do is the same: they capture the realtime police communications as the responders are doing their job. In this case, hunting down and capturing the remaining suspect in the Marathon bombing.

News media using police scanners to gather information is nothing new. And of course, there are those, some might call them geeks, who make a hobby of listening in on police radios. What is new is the use of the internet and social media such as Reddit, 4chan and Ustream to share that real time police activity with the rest of the world. This is a game changer in several respects.

One, it takes “instant news” to a whole new level. This is getting as close as it seems possible to being one of the eyewitnesses on the scene, except you can be on the other side of the globe. How do you get faster than instant? Nano, I guess.

Second, it is “small news.” It comes in the tiniest bits and pieces. For example, the Redditor who was following a police scanner app reported during his or her continual stream of reports from the police scanner that “we have movement, arm is moving.” This was one of the first indications to the police and simultaneously to the world that the suspect was alive under the tarp covering the boat. A tiny bit of information, but yet so significant to those “on the scene” eagerly watching events unfold.

Third, it is fully unfiltered, unchecked and unreliable. It’s long been said that the first reports about almost anything are bound to be wrong. But when those first reports are not about what HAS happened, but what IS happening, it seems almost more certain they will be wrong. We saw that to tragic effect in the Boston situation, where a police scanner referencing the name of a possible suspect was picked up and distributed widely throughout the internet. One women’s organization with 300,000 Facebook likes put that name out and apologized when it turned out to be a missing student who was found dead a few days later. The apology included the explanation “I’m not a journalist,” as if that excused the distribution of a false report to hundreds of thousands. What the new “nano news” reporters seem to not understand is that they are “journalists” or “broadcasters” in the sense that what they say can and often is distributed to thousands or even millions and they bear some responsibility when the false information ends up impacting response activity or the lives of those involved.

Fourth, related to the above, information true and false can be harmful. It can hurt police or response operations. It can compromise public safety. It can cause untold damage to reputations and cause extreme emotional pain. Because of this, no doubt the emergence of “nano news” will prompt the further use of encrypted radios, but I would guess may also spur legislation. Legislation is often a recourse when people act irresponsibly and most “5-0 Scan kids” as I call them (after the popular app 5-0 Scan) would not consider it irresponsible to simply relay what is on the police scanner. But it can be and often is. When they use their computer to live video a police scanner and share that on Ustream they would not think of the harm they could be causing. But they should.

We have left an era of “processed news.” That is information that is gathered, vetted, verified, compressed, packaged and distributed to a waiting audience. The audience has become the broadcaster and those charged with vetting, approving and packaging are struggling mightily to figure out how to be responsible when they can’t possibly beat the police scanners or the on-the-scene eyewitnesses sharing what they observe on Twitter. As they get closer to nano news themselves, mistakes with potentially huge consequences are inevitable. But, when it is desperately important to us, we can accept those errors are part of the price we pay for getting what we want right now.

Nano news is here to stay. For good and ill.

UPDATE:

Just after writing this I read this excellent post by Bill Salvin about using Twitter in the first hour after an incident. He’s right on the money and since Twitter largely created the nano news phenomenon, it is essential that crisis communicators follow Bill’s advice.

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Valuable lessons learned from the I-5 bridge collapse PIO

Posted on May 30, 2013 by gbaron

So you are picking your kid up from a soccer match, driving down Interstate 5. Suddenly, the bridge you are about to drive over, like you’ve done a thousand times, falls into the river. There are cars and people in the river. But, you are a communicator, a member of the incident management team. You find the just-established command post, the Incident Commander recognizes you and suddenly you find yourself the official PIO for the biggest news story of the moment.

Something quite like this happened to Marcus Deyerin. I had high interest in this story because, as I explained in my posts on emergencymgmt.com, this is MY bridge–I only live five miles away and cross it nearly every day. Like 71,000 others. And I have known Marcus for several years as a communicator for a local government agency. So it was with strong interest I followed this story even though I was in California when the bridge went down.

Marcus is sharing his very important lessons learned about being the initial PIO for this event in two blog posts on Jim Garrow’s terrific blog “The Face of the Matter.” (Here’s the link to the second post.)

If you are a communicator and could find yourself in this kind of situation where suddenly you are tapped to be the voice of a response a good part of the world is tuning in to, you may want to pay close attention to Marcus’ lessons learned.

Posted in Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

White House in crisis: any lessons here?

Posted on May 16, 2013 by gbaron

A few years back a former press aide in the White House told me every day in the communication office was a crisis. But these days, the crisis management activity has to be a bit higher than normal. While I approach this political topic with fear and trepidation it is arguably the biggest crisis communication exercise going on today and I think it has some lessons for those who study how crises are handled.

So, here goes.

1. How individuals or groups respond to a brand or organization depends on their starting point.

I’ve heard from both sides on the Obama crises. One friend said he was the most maligned president in history, maligned by the press. Others, of a more Fox News bent, simply have a happy face when talking about these latest issues. That is very important from a crisis management standpoint. How you or your organization fare in a crisis depends largely about the reputation equity you currently have. Are you in an industry (like Big Oil) that is generally distrusted and disliked? Then that is going to bear greatly on the reaction to a spill. Have you had a series of high profile difficulties that undermined trust? That is going to play a big role. Or, do you have years of solid relationship building with key stakeholders with many who trust and respect you? The recent ExxonMobil spill in Arkansas resulted in people on the street waving placards. But, as one nearly unbelieving reporter told me, these were people supporting ExxonMobil. How could that be? I told him it was probably due to a good job the company did in communicating and building support in the community for a long time. Reputation equity in the bank can pay big dividends when it is needed most. This is Obama’s greatest hope–he has a vast constituency of strong supporters who give him the benefit of the doubt in nearly every situation. It will take a lot to erode that and from that perspective he is innocent of involvement in these activities and is being persecuted by political enemies and an unfair media.

2. Classic crisis management activity in play.

There are lots of examples of how the administration’s communication team is playing the various situations–Benghazi, AP records seizure and the IRS targeting of conservative groups. The IRS case is potentially most damaging if it were to be linked to the administration. So here there is a case of outrage, separation from any responsibility, sacking of those involved and promises to make sure this can’t happen again. The other issues seem to be less in play and that too seems strategic in that the farther they appear from White House the better. Keep the Benghazi problem in Clinton’s State Department and the AP issue in the Justice Department. But, there are problems with this…

3. Guilt by culture

It is one thing for a CEO to say “I had no idea such egregious behavior was going on,” another thing to successfully avoid any blame. So here is the real problem with these crises. I doubt very much that anyone will find any evidence linking approval of these problems directly to the White House. That does not make the White House innocent of them. There is the issue of course, that these are the people on their team and they were the ones who vetted them for wisdom and judgment. But there is something deeper and that has to do with culture. I’ve been around DC enough to see that people in high administrative positions have one thing on their mind: how do I keep my job? And the answer to that by keeping to what the boss or bosses or ultimate boss would want me to do. Their judgement if the values, priorities, decisions of the highest leaders determine their ideas of what is right and wrong in various circumstances. Here is where my bias comes in. I was involved in the Gulf oil spill communications and had a near front row seat watching this administration take charge of all communications relating to the spill. They kicked BP out of any communication role, put twenty-somethings in command authority over the seasoned communication professionals because those twenty-somethings had the direct connection to the White House. They firmly implemented firm orders to not allow any communication to go out without White House approval and then embargoed it for an hour after approval to allow them to control the message. Summarily fired a seasoned government communicator for telling the truth to the media as to who was in control of media access issues–he told the press it was the White House, but the story they wanted was that BP was controlling. That was my limited exposure to the culture. Add one more thing. In talking to some high level government officials I was told that no administration they had seen before (going back to Bush I) was anywhere near as micromanaging as this one–particularly as it related to controlling the message. Admittedly, this is scant evidence and only my personal experience. But if it is the case, then these three seemingly unrelated problems are endemic, part of the culture, and the actions taken with higher levels of acceptance than is being presented. If that is the case, we are seeing the beginning of a very significant problem for this administration.

The more important lesson (if I am right and I hope I am not), is that culture matters. The tone set at the highest levels are interpreted throughout the organization and used as a basis for making decisions at that level as to what is acceptable or not. A recent discussion about crisis communication raised the question about the most important thing in crisis management. I and others replied: character. Character at the top determines culture and culture influences (does not control) the actions of nearly everyone in the organization. That is the most important lesson of all.

 

 

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Will Twitter outlast New York Times?

Posted on May 14, 2013 by gbaron

Peter Thiel, PayPal co-founder said in a recent press conference that Twitter would outlast the New York Times. Gil Rudawsky of GroundFloor Media reported on this and asked the question in a recent blog post.

I’d hate to make that prediction as I, a very long time ago, boldly predicted that Twitter would soon be gone. I thought people would tire of sharing the particular Starbucks drink they were enjoying which seemed to be the primary point of Twitter at the time (see, the name suggested to me a bunch of meaningless bird-like tweeting). How wrong I was as Twitter has become the driver in today’s news coverage, and one of the most significant news channels currently available. If Mr. Thiel is right, even more significant than the mighty New York Times.

It fascinates me no end that so many in crisis communication seem to have trouble grasping the significance of this change. But I would suggest, as Boston Police showed in their excellent use of Twitter during the bomber manhunt, that Twitter has made public information and media relations a much, much simpler game:

If you do nothing else in a major event other than providing near continuous tweets about what you know and what you don’t know, in 140 character bites, you will still be the communication champ. 

 

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, Crisis Communicator, crisis management | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Five Simple Steps to Crisis Preparation

Posted on May 2, 2013 by gbaron

I was asked by a local business publication to do a column on crisis management. Since the audience is quite broad from mom and pop operations to some pretty sizeable industrial and healthcare organizations, the assignment helped me think through the basics.

So here is my take on the most important steps in preparing for a crisis regardless of the size and type of organization.

Five Simple Steps to Prepare for a Crisis

 

By Gerald Baron, Agincourt Strategies

 

Even though nearly every day we see a new business crisis happening, most organizations have not prepared to face a major crisis. That’s especially true of online or social media crises, even though that is the fastest growing type of crisis most face.

 

One reason to take a head-in-the-sand approach, is that many tend to think that crisis preparation is difficult, expensive or even impossible. But, there are a few basic actions any organization leader can take that will go far in eliminating crises from happening in the first place, and help them deal with them more effectively if they do happen.

1. Imagine your worst case scenarios.

Crisis preparation begins with a thorough examination of the kinds of events that can do you in. Might be data loss, maybe a major flood or earthquake, sudden loss of senior leaders, a bad review that goes viral, a product recall, toxic release or illegal immigration problem that hits the news. Prioritize them using a Risk Matrix, evaluating which are the most and least likely and highest and lowest impact. But, don’t fail in imagination. We’ve seen mega-disasters like the BP spill and the Fukushima tsunami in part because planners just didn’t think such worst case events were possible.

2. Take preventive measures.

If you know that an ammonia release could be devastating, you will probably double check your precautions. If you feel vulnerable about customer service, the scenarios may lead you to focus on significant improvements. The devastation of a product recall may be prevented by doubling down on quality control. And so on. The great thing about starting with scenarios and the Risk Matrix is that you know where to start in preventing a crisis. Estimates are that 75% of all business crises are smouldering–there was smoke well before the fire. Your entire organization needs to be prepared to smell the smoke and report it.

3. Character and actions matter most.

A study out of Oxford clearly demonstrated that the impact on share price on a company during and after a crisis was directly related to the perception of the public about the character of the leaders. Actions matter, and the actions that matter most are the ones that demonstrate the leaders care more about how the event is hurting others than how it is hurting them. That’s why Johnson and Johnson’s response to the contaminated Excedrin is still the gold standard of crisis response: they acted as if it was their fault and did a nationwide recall at their expense even though they were the victim of the criminal as well. And its why former BP CEO Tony Hayward’s comments about “wanting my life back” were so negatively received. Actions must be about helping and protecting others. Crisis communication should be mostly about effectively telling the caring actions that the leaders are taking.

4. Know who you need to talk to and how you will reach them.

Far too many think that crisis communication is about dealing with the media. The media are important, however, they are not nearly as important as your key stakeholders. These are the people whose opinion about you matters most for your future. Large customers, major donors, key employees, labor leaders, elected officials, regulators, community leaders–your future may be in their hands.  The media are important only because of how they can affect key stakeholder opinion about you. But, if you connect with those important people and tell them straight up, honestly, openly what is going on and what you are doing, you will earn their trust even if the media doesn’t get the story right. Media are in the business of attracting an audience–these days at almost any cost. Do you really want to trust your future to them with that agenda?

More than knowing who you must communicate with, you must know how you will interact with them. Phone? Email? Website? Social Media? Snail mail? Meetings? All these can be critically important. It is their preference of channels to use that is critical–not yours. If you don’t know how they expect to hear from you in a major crisis, now is a good time to find that out.

5. Prepare key messages in advance.

Any casual look at business crises today will show that the story of many failings is “too little, too late.” Often companies do the right thing, but too late. In today’s instant news world, you have to be able to engage and communicate almost immediately. And the only way to do that is by preparing in advance. When you think through those scenarios, also think through what questions will be asked of you and what key messages need to be communicated. Involving key decision makers including legal advisers in preparing key messages in advance will mean you can move much quicker, with assurance and authority. And that feels real good when it is hitting the fan.

Gerald Baron, former publisher of Business Pulse, is a crisis communication consultant who has worked with many Fortune 100 comnpanies and government agencies from the federal to the municipal level. He writes the Crisis Comm blog for Emergency Management and the crisisblogger.com blog. He owned Baron&Company, a Bellingham marketing and PR agency for over 30 years and founded PIER System, the world’s leading supplier of crisis communication technology.

Posted in Crisis Advice, Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, Crisis Communicator, crisis management | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Aftermath of Boston bombing and news: a call for silence

Posted on April 24, 2013 by gbaron

It was a week to remember–the bombings, the ricin letters, the horrific tragedy in West, Texas. I reflected on one important aspect of public information coming out of the Boston bombings on Crisis Comm on emergencymagmt.com and won’t repeat myself here.

But I’ve thought much about the dilemma forced on us by the now easy access to police scanners almost anywhere in the world and the resulting ability to share that almost more than real-time information through Reddit, 4chan and any social media channel. This is radical transparency that present profound new dangers to public safety through the remarkable ease of sharing inside information and misinformation.

Mike Anany published on Nieman Lab provides some very useful perspective on the terrible mistakes made by major news outlets and the good and bad of social media use during the bombing aftermath and the hunt for the bombers.

Everyone who uses social media during events like this–officially and unofficially–should pay close heed to the virtue of silence. Truthfully, I think official voices cannot be silent but they must be active continually during an event even if that activity is to say we have no new confirmed information but will provide it as soon as possible. The Boston Police Department’s use of Twitter was one of the brightest spots (this article on mashable provides the critical lessons to be learned). But while official voices cannot and should not be silent, they should be aware of the critically important role they play in providing the best and most accurate information. That entails knowing the inaccurate information that is being spread and being diligent and fast in correcting it. Given what is at stake and the assured spread of damaging or devastating rumors, this role becomes one not of “good to to” or even “should to do” but of true moral obligation.

But for us who have unofficial voices, the call for silence is to be heeded. The quotation from Gandhi that leads Anany’s thoughtful article is great to remember, not just in horrific events, but each and every day:

“Speak only if it improves upon the silence.”

 

 

Posted in Crisis Advice, Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Royal Bank of Canada facing social media uproar, boycott–outsourced jobs at issue

Posted on April 10, 2013 by gbaron

I put this one in the category of engagement fail. Another in the long line of social media crises caused by what used to be normal business decisions gaining a firestorm of protest online. Any business decision today is subject to online criticism with the potential of gaining serious momentum. Today it is happening to Royal Bank of Canada and a decision to replace 45 employees with outsourced (ie. “foreign”) workers.

But what I’d like to focus on is how RBC has attempted to quell the storm. Their response was to put their HR leader, Zabeen Hirji on TV to explain the position. The resulting video (view the interview through this link) provides a great case study in the importance of clear, concise communication and good media training.

The interview is mostly a failure, in my mind. No doubt Ms Hirji is a very talented executive or she would not rise to a position like this. But to quell a firestorm like this more was needed than she could provide. Here’s where I would fault her performance:

- non-verbal language — we all know how important this is. From the over-gestures, to the somewhat severe expression, to the overall tenor she does not communicate the care, concern and strength needed to be successful

- lack of clarity–what is her message? It is very confusing. The problem is that the official line of the company is confusing because here is the specific language used by the CEO Gordon Nixon in a memo to employees about this:

I would like to provide you with some context about this story and assure you that RBC has not hired temporary foreign workers to take over the job functions of these employees.

In this case, we have a contract with a vendor to support specific technology requirements, which impacts approximately 45 employees.

In keeping with standard business practices, when transitioning activities, our vendor has temporarily assigned a number of their employees onsite at RBC to affect this transition with a small number remaining on a go forward basis.

It seems quite simple: 45 people are losing their jobs (they may get transitioned to other jobs) and the work they were doing is now coming under a contract with a vendor. They could have said that much more clearly and simply. Instead, they come across as trying to “spin” (God, I hate that word) and put some lipstick on a pig. Just say it.

- Justification. Ms. Hirji does try to justify the decision in terms of productivity. But, in the process she says some very strange things (at least to me):

“productivity improvements are something that happen as much in the private sector as in the public sector.”

Now, maybe that’s Canada and not the US but to refer to productivity improvements in the government sector in the US is going to generate at least a few wry smiles if not outright guffaws. I just don’t know what she was trying to say here.

This comment was made in response to a question about the profits the bank is making and why the bank would be cutting employees when it is making so much money.

The point of all this is that communication matters. Clear, effective communication is still critical. Without knowing the situation more, I would venture some advice that may be helpful to others when facing this.

1. I would not have put Ms. Hirji in that position, at least not without some very intense media training focused on her non-verbal communication.

2) Anyone put on camera would need to focus on key messages and be trained to stay with those.

3) Key messages:

1) We have 57,000 employees and that means evaluating, reassigning, retraining is part of our every day work.

2) To remain competitive and provide the service our customers and country expect requires vigilant focus on productivity–and that at times means making changes to improve productivity. That is what is happening here.

3) Change can be difficult and some wish to complain about that publicly. We understand that but we will continue to work with those experiencing change to minimize the impacts on their lives and careers.

 

Posted in Crisis Advice, Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, Crisis Communicator, crisis management | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment