How the media create irrational fear–an interview with Jon Entine

Posted on March 23, 2012 by gbaron

I blogged recently about Jon Entine and his book “Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health.” Following that I had the opportunity to interview Jon via skype and record it. I’m presenting that interview to you in the hopes that it will aid understanding of how today’s media’s need to attract audiences can be harmful. Not just to reputations, as we talk about here frequently, but even to our health.

This is one more of a continuing series of video interviews with interesting thought leaders and crisis communication experts. I encourage you to add your name to the email list at agincourt.us as I will be sending out notices when valuable new training and education tools like this become available.

View video on website.

10 minute edited video

Full 45 minute discussion

 

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

Ft Hood shows how to manage a global town hall meeting

Posted on March 22, 2012 by gbaron

One of the most interesting stories I’ve come across in a long time is how Ft. Hood, I believe the nation’s second largest army base near Killeen, Texas, managed a global town hall meeting featuring live discussion with their global community.

The Army III Corps commander stationed at the massive army post said he wanted to do a  town hall meeting that would involve the entire base’s community. That means 350,000 soldiers, family members, retirees and others connected to the base. Including about 8000 personnel deployed in Kuwait and Afghanistan. That’s a tall order. But Chris Haug, Chief of Media Relations at the base, and Christie Vanover, Chief of Command Information and Social Media Manager put it all together, and in late January the town all meeting was conducted. Unlike the town hall meetings the base commander would do the past, with officers gathered in a hanger, this one involved over 100,000 of the bases’ community listening in and over 2200 actively participating with questions or comments.

How did they do it? It was definitely a multiple-channel, multi-media, integrated communications exercise. It involved a live satellite broadcast feed picked up by local Texas TV broadcasters and even by Al-Jazeera enabling deployed soldiers to participate. It involved live webcast streaming, internet radio, Facebook, Twitter, email, telephone and the bases PIER site. In fact, I’m quite proud to say, PIER was the tool used to integrate the various channels and particularly effective in allowing over 50 Subject Matter Experts, many of whom were in other locations, to actively assist the Commander in answering questions in real time.

If you have a community you need to connect with, if you are really getting the message about engagement, then you will definitely want to learn more about this. And O’Brien’s and PIER, are sponsoring a webinar featuring Chris Haug and Christie Vanover who will let you look behind the curtain to see exactly how all this was done. I’ll be facilitating the discussion and would love to have you participate.

This is a really unique opportunity to learn some cutting edge application of today’s communication technology, so pass this invite along and let everyone you know who might be interested know about this webinar. The webinar is Thursday, March 29 at 1 pm CDT. Here again is the link and registration. The webinar will be recorded so send me an email at gerald.baron@agincourt.us if you can’t participate and want a copy of the recording g.

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

Interest in Pinterest–an expert close to home

Posted on March 20, 2012 by gbaron

Pinterest, as most now know, is the fastest growing social media site–ever. That means it is relevant for crisis and emergency communication under the theory that you have to go where your audiences are. Pinterest’s audience is still over 80% women and some would describe it as a shared scrapbook–I wouldn’t, but some would.

When KING5 News, the leading TV broadcaster, decided to do a story on Pinterest they found a real expert in Seattle on it. Someone who uses it, loves it, and knows how to leverage its functions to expand the reach of their blog. None other than my daughter Ashley (Baron) Rodriguez. We watched her on TV last night as she explained to the Pacific Northwest just what Pinterest is and what it is good for. If you’ve been around crisisblogger very long, you probably already know that she is one of the top food bloggers in the world (not according to me, but according to Times Online of Financial Times London). Her blog Not Without Salt is gorgeous, filled with spectacular photos and of course great food which she creates.

Sure, I’m proud. But this also reveals one of my secrets of keeping up on this social media stuff. I’ve got three top experts in the family so I don’t have to go far to get the scoop on the latest.

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

Goldman PR crisis–Round 27

Posted on March 15, 2012 by gbaron

Does it seem to you that Goldman Sachs has sort of an unending PR crisis? The latest involves a London-based executive, Greg Smith, who quit the company rather publicly by having his resignation letter published as an op-ed in the New York Times. That strikes me a little odd–does NYT publish resignation letters from disgruntled employees routinely or was this some sort of special case? I’m guessing the news potential was too great to pass up.

The news nose knows it, and the letter and op-ed went viral, as they say. Why? This article suggests some reasons. I’m thinking it has a lot to do with the general distaste left in the mouth of most relating to fat cat Wall Street bankers, plus the continuing PR disasters that seem to haunt this once highly respected firm. How have the mighty fallen.

Given that, I think PR Daily News missed a key point in their otherwise valuable reflection on this latest crisis and what it means for crisis managers. They report that Goldman’s response to this latest hit was to say “we disagree.” Here’s the quote:

“We disagree with the views expressed, which we don’t think reflect the way we run our business. In our view, we will only be successful if our clients are successful. This fundamental truth lies at the heart of how we conduct ourselves.”

Now, that is cautious, reasonable and I’m sure reflects the view of management. Unfortunately it does little to help Goldman’s increasingly severe reputation crisis. I believe it is one of the key functions of communication managers in an organization to deeply understand and represent the viewpoint of those outside the organization–particularly those who matter most to the future of the organization. If that is the case and a dose of reality were injected into the discussion about how to respond to the unhappy, loudmouth ex-employee I would have said: “You know we think this guy is out to lunch and clearly wants to hurt us. But, we’ve been hit by many accusations including some that proved to be fairly well established as fact. We need to approach this with uncustomary humility. We need to show that we are clearly examining ourselves to see how we match up with the values and expectations of our customers, potential customers, and stakeholders. Therefore, I suggest we issue as statement such as: ‘Mr. Smith’s accusations are hard-hitting and painful, particularly at a time when we are carefully reassessing the true values of Goldman Sachs. While we believe he is fundamentally wrong on some of the key issues, particularly that we don’t care about our customers, we are taking this criticism to heart. It is valuable, if painful, input that deserves our attention and we will use it to continue the soul searching that is necessary for us at Goldman Sachs as we look to a healthier, more respectful future.’”

OK, maybe I’m the one out to lunch. What do the rest of you think? Did Goldman’s flat rejection help them in their increasingly tenuous reputation management challenges?

 

 

Posted in Crisis Advice, Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, Crisis Communicator, crisis management | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Tweet or not tweet in a crisis–good advice, bad headline

Posted on March 14, 2012 by gbaron

I was sent this article (thanks Chuck!) from Business Insider that has the headline “The Best Thing to Do in a Crisis is Stay Away from Twitter.” I was intrigued because this is exactly the opposite advice that I and others that I know whom I consider experts in this field have been teaching and preaching.

I suspect that the article will get a lot of circulation because a number of more traditionalists in crisis communication and PR will glom onto the headline without reading the story and say, “See! I told you! Using social media in a crisis (or any time) is a bad idea!”

James MacGregor, the author of the article, does indeed suggest that social media is not the panacea that is often suggested. He says:

“…we are so often besieged with assertions that crises are effectively managed (or, perhaps, can only be managed) through massive applications of social media (only a few years ago, it was massive applications of traditional news media). We don’t think so. Judiciously deployed, social media can be powerful tools. But in many circumstances, social media are more likely to cause or worsen a crisis than they are to prevent one. And once a crisis has arisen, the best remediation is likely to be very old-fashioned— direct, simple, helpful and, above all, personal.”

No doubt that social media can cause or worsen a crisis, if not used well. And that is what he says:

“Used judiciously, social media can sometimes forestall a crisis. Used foolishly or maliciously, social media can provoke a crisis, or turn it viral. Once a crisis does erupt, social media has considerable potential to make it bigger, uglier and faster-moving.”

OK, he says use social media judiciously. He doesn’t say don’t use it. But then he makes the strong case why you need to be aware, monitor and use it during a crisis. He talks about how people will find out first about a crisis through Twitter and how YouTube will enable them to see it, and how blogs will “drown out mainstream media.” His solution to this new reality:

“There’s a corresponding litany of things you can do to prevent or deal with all this: Learn how and when to tweet yourself. Make and post your own videos. Hire a social-media monitoring service. Hire a search-engine-optimizer…”

That doesn’t sound to me like the advice supposedly encapsulated in the headline.

But he also suggests that you can cause a problem with Twitter (I agree) and that once a problem is caused with Twitter you can’t fix it with Twitter (hmmm, not so sure about that). He says:

“You are very unlikely to defeat a Twitter-formed perception with more Twitter. All that happens is more public visibility is given to the dispute about the first perception.”

First, Twitter and other social media have been shown to be remarkably self-correcting and you can be part of that process. But he says in effect a firestorm on Twitter may require more than Twitter to be put out. Yes, as he says in this article–it is a multi-channel world and we must operate in those multiple channels. Sometimes you have to use more than Twitter including as much direct communication as you can, as he points out, in order to defeat a firestorm on Twitter.

And that seems to be his real point because I agree completely his four summary points:

1) Go direct 2) Answer the question first (in other words, deal directly with what people want to know) 3) Be short be simple (he refers to the 140 character limit 4) Be pre-emptively good (actions speak louder than words).

Great advice. But doesn’t go direct also mean using the same channels that at least some in your audience are you using including social media?

Altogether, Mr. MacGregor in my mind is sending very mixed messages about using social media and the potential for damage. In that he is completely correct. But the headline gives no mixed message at all and consequently it does a severe disservice to Mr. MacGregor and his advice. The Business Insider editor takes pains to point out the headline was written by O’Dwyer’s. Clearly it was written to attract attention ala “Man Bites Dog,” but it is irresponsible, misleading and will do harm to those who will jump on this advice they see in it.

 

 

 

 

 

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

New study evaluates crisis principle #1: ‘fess up fast and honestly

Posted on March 13, 2012 by gbaron

In this study published in the Public Relations Journal, Jo Robertson asks the question: Does it really help for an organization in a crisis to self-disclose bad news and do it quickly?

In this academically-oriented report, she, (I assume she because Jo and not Joe) first shows that while “talk early and confess completely” is a well established maxim of crisis communication, there has been little other than anecdotal or case study support for the idea. No thorough analysis.

In the author’s words, this is what this study attempted to establish:

This study sought to determine whether there is validity to the assumption that a
company in crisis should release all potentially damaging information immediately rather than wait to see whether the information is discovered. Research questions included:
What are the ramifications for a company in crisis that withholds damaging information which later comes to light? Does releasing all damaging information proactively shorten negative press attention regarding the crisis?

The research methodology was based primarily on survey responses submitted by journalists in the WA DC area. The author looked at nine different crises involving both government and private companies, from 2003 to 2006.

The conclusion?

There is now research to support what until now has been only assumption with regard
to the potential damage that could be incurred by withholding information. Rather than
assuming information needs to be shared forthrightly, we now know the consequence of
withholding information will be more media coverage, keeping negative information
longer in play and raising the odds of reputational damage. Withholding information
which later comes to light can not only cause additional media attention, but that media
attention may be even greater than the attention initially generated when the crisis first
breaks.
Ninety-five percent of journalists surveyed said they would be more suspicious of a
company if they found that the company had withheld critical information, or tried to
cover it up, than if the company had released the information proactively. Nine out of
ten said knowing that the company had deliberately withheld information would cause
them to dig deeper and harder for additional incriminating information. And an
overwhelming majority (98%) of journalists say the fact that the company had tried to
withhold information would prompt additional coverage.
If all information is released when the crisis first breaks, journalists estimate their
coverage of crisis stories could likely be over within the first 24-48 hours. However,
when additional information comes to light – even as early as one day after the crisis
genesis – the number of total stories increases. More damaging, though, is that the
total number of stories is more spread out – increasing the length of time the story is
kept “alive” and company reputation can continue to suffer damage. Also, subsequent
attention is often more pronounced and more damaging than the initial spike of media
attention. And since stock value remains low throughout the time period of most intense
negative media coverage, allowing damaging information to seep out gradually can slow financial recovery.

Phew! I’m glad that more objective research (however limited this study may be) confirms what seems very common-sensical. So, if you as a communication manager need to convince corporate attorneys, your CEO or Exec Director, or the senior team that releasing bad news early is a good idea, you’ve got something more than the universal advice of communication experts to rely on. For that reason, this report is invaluable.

But, here’s where I think it is very incomplete. This deals only with media coverage, which as most are slowly coming to realize, is playing a less and less significant role in crises and reputations. What about the new dynamic of social media discussion about crises on reputations? If anything, my sense is that this dynamic increases the need for speed and full disclosure. But, that’s just my sense. We need an academic like Dr. Robertson to validate that.

 

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

Too slow deadly for reputations, but also for lives? Virginia Tech case.

Posted on March 12, 2012 by gbaron

The court case is beginning against Virginia Tech, nearly five years after the deadly shooting that took 33 lives including the shooter. According to this story the prosecutors are focusing the accusations against the school on its slow response in alerting the school community about the initial shooting.

This event in April 2007 brought media and public attention to the the automated notification systems that had been evolving in the few years before that. We must remember that prior to VT, few in the public understood that it was even possible to communicate quickly and directly. Notification in emergencies was based on sending a message to the media who would broadcast it to everyone. And VT had had a problem earlier where they had sounded the alarm to the media, scared everyone, and paid the price for crying wolf. They didn’t want to do that again.

But, as the media got onto the VT massacre, they discovered that some schools had put text and automated phone or reverse 911 systems in place. The question then became–why didn’t VT. And every university president had to answer the question to their local media if they had such systems and how prepared they were to notify the campus in such an event.

Such is the way a story like this horrible event can change the world. I’m guessing now that this trial could have a further effect. If the school is found liable based on its lack of awareness of or slowness in implementing the latest notification technology, that certainly will put a burden on everyone with responsibility over a group (schools, nursing homes, prisons, even whole communities) to make certain they are keeping up with best practices and technologies in communication. And if the administration is found liable based on their rather deliberate and slow approach to react to the emerging crisis, that too will put a lot more focus on an organization’s ability to respond quickly.

Not long ago, Chief Bill Boyd commented on the fact that universities with their collegial approach to decision-making were not amenable to implementing ICS with its very top-down management approach. I believe he is right about this, but management styles that don’t fit with ICS are not limited to universities. The VT lawsuit may draw some attention to this large gap. If the jury and the public through the media decide that the administrators caused deaths by slow response and lack of the latest technology, this court case could have a very significant impact on how organizations evaluate their crisis communication plans and technologies.

 

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

“Scared to Death” by Jon Entine should be mandatory reading

Posted on March 9, 2012 by gbaron

Unless you are brand new to crisisblogger you know that I think far too much of what parades for journalism today is bad for us. The competition for declining audiences leads even the most respected news organizations to resort to hyperbole, sensationalism, and shallowness. Stories too often have to create visceral emotions of fear, uncertainty, doubt or outrage–whereas the truth frequently is far more complex.

This, in my opinion, is one of the key drivers in the remarkable decline of trust in our nation. The public doesn’t trust big companies, CEOs, government agencies and certainly not Congress. But trust is lowest, ironically, in the news media.

So I think today’s media environment, while toxic for corporate reputations, is harmful. Now, I see that it is also probably quite harmful for our health.

Jon Entine, of the American Council for Science and Health, has written a powerful book called “Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health.” This organization’s focus seems to be combatting junk science and situations where politics and public opinion intervenes in good policy making relating to science and health. The list of prominent scientists and physicians involved is long, impressive and fully disclosed.

I can’t summarize the basic message better than Entine:

“Belief in the relative benefits of chemicals, trust in the industries that produce them and confidence in government regulators have never been lower. Corporations that produce chemicals are often portrayed as greedy and indifferent. Questions persist about the government’s ability to exercise its oversight responsibility.”

The result, says Entine, may very well make us less healthy than healthy. One of the examples he provides to support this hypothesis is the clearly political nature of the President’s Cancer Panel Annual Report for 2008-2009. While 1.5 million new cases of cancer are diagnosed each year, and over a half million Americans die of cancer each year, and the societal cost if nearly a quarter trillion dollars, the report falsely focused on chemicals in the environment. How can he and I say “falsely”? Entine carefully answers that question, demonstrating that the consensus among epidemiologists is that the primary causes of cancer are tobacco, obesity, infections, radiation, stress and lack of physical activity. These numbers leave about 4% of cancers caused by toxins, contaminants and pollution. But, reports like this, so eagerly used by the media, activists and tort lawyers takes focus and dollars away from the real factors, thereby threatening our health.

But I found Entine’s detailed case studies on BPA and atrazine the most compelling.

BPA or bisphenol A is an industrial chemical used to make plastic products stronger and more flexible. It has been used in plastics manufacturing for over 50 years.

A sponsored link at the top of the Google search for the chemical gives an idea of the campaign against this chemical: Healthychild.org:

Plastics are everywhere and in most cases are very affordable and convenient. But, increasingly scientists are finding that a hidden cost may be our health. Some common plastics release harmful chemicals into our air, foods, and drinks. Maybe you can’t see or taste it, but if you’re serving your dinner on plastic, you’re likely eating a little plastic for dinner.

Even the wikipedia article on it gives substance to the government and scientific studies involving this chemical including the fact that it has been banned in Canada. But Entine tells a very different story. He notes that the studies, as with so many other chemical products, involve serious hormonal effects on rodents. But those tests are with injected chemicals at a rate 500,000 times of that consumed by humans–which do not inject BPA. Entine makes a strong case that the scientific evidence does not support concern over BPA and highlights the efforts of many from the European Union, to the Komen Foundation, to the FDA to try to calm the public fears about this substance. Here’s the CDC on BPA for example: “In animal and human studies, bisphenol A is well absorbed orally…in humans, little free bisphenol A circulates after oral absorption due to the high degree of glucuronidation by the liver. The glucucorinidated bisphenol A is excreted in the urine within 24 hours with no evidence of accumulation.”

Despite efforts by organizations like the FDA and CDC to calm the fears, the media pays no attention to such reports. Not when they can when “bushels” of awards like the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has done by publishing more than 50 stories “excoriating the government for not restricting or banning the use of BPA.”

The ban by the Canadian government provides a great example of politics completing overwhelming science when activists and sensationalist media combine to scare us to death. Entine reports:

“When Mark Richardson, the chief scientist and head of the study [by Health Canada on BPA]. unofficially concluded the evidence showed that the dangers of BPA were ‘so low as to be totally inconsequential’ and compared its estrogenic effects to tofu, activists and the media, led by The Globe and Mail of Toronto, mounted an attack on his credibility that led to his reassignment.”

But, when the Health Canada report came out it echoed Richardson’s conclusion: “Bisphenol A does not pose a risk to the general population, including adults, teenagers and children.” So what did the Canadian government do? Health Canada, reflecting on the role of public anxiety also said: “Even though scientific information may be inconclusive [a strange statement given the fact that this is one of the most studied chemicals on earth and none have shown a danger except by injecting 500,000 times the amount used by humans in rats], decisions have to be made to meet society’s expectations that risks be addressed and living standards maintained.” So, of course, the Canadian government banned it for use in infant products–but not for any other use. And now, the fact that it is banned in Canada, gives credence to the activists and media reports, strengthening the loop.

Score one for the activists and fear mongering media. Science loses, and so does the public interest.

The case study on atrazine is equally compelling, but I won’t go into the details here.

Chemicals kill, no doubt about it. Chemicals that occur in the natural world and that are created in the lab and factories. Everything we taste, touch and experience involves chemicals. The danger always comes in the amount of exposure and what that particular chemical does to us. And we are continually finding out more about the risks as well as dramatically improving our ability to detect chemicals and their risks. That is all good. Plus, there have been some horrible examples in the past where greedy corporate managers have overlooked risks to the public for the sake of profits. That’s why effective government regulation is essential, and we must hold our elected officials accountable for that.

Given all that, I fundamentally agree with Entine and the Council’s position. Too much junk science is pushed by activists and attorneys. Too many journalists and now bloggers and commenters are eager to scare the beJesus out of us in order to attract eyeballs and be seen as crusaders. Too many politicians care little about the science and what is real in their eagerness to be seen as the white knights out to save us all. Too many educators and academic scientists pass on their 1960s and 1970s values of distrust. The result is a world filled with false fears. It is endemic in our youth in particular. It is evident in far too many anonymous comments on the web. There is outrage, fear and mistrust that is stoked by too many institutions and fear mongers who have much to gain.

We are being scared to death and it is hurting all of us.

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Is hyper-connectedness ruining our youth?

Posted on March 1, 2012 by gbaron

My wife and I have often commented on the potential negative impact of everyone being continually plugged into their mobile devices. While in this blog and my blog on emergency management I work on understanding what this means for crisis and emergency communications, there is a deeper question: is this a good thing? Is it good for people to be tweeting and texting and watching their smartphones while having dinner with each other? Is it good to never be far away from the phone, email, text or social media, as I saw on the golf course yesterday. Lynne (my wife) and I watched with real sadness one day as we saw a teenager of about 15 having dinner with his grandmother but spent the entire time texting on his phone. I don’t think the two of them said one word.

Now Elon University and Pew Internet Project have published a study showing effects of hyper-connectedness on our youth. Here is their quick summary:

Many of the experts surveyed by Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center and the Pew Internet Project said the effects of hyperconnectivity and the always-on lifestyles of young people will be mostly positive between now and 2020. But the experts in this survey also predicted this generation will exhibit a thirst for instant gratification and quick fixes, a loss of patience, and a lack of deep-thinking ability due to what one referred to as “fast-twitch wiring.”

The study was done by through an opt-in, non-random online survey of experts in this field of study. The overall feeling seems to be that the impact will be more positive than negative but some serious concerns about impact. I was a bit disheartened to see that the focus of the report seems to be on performance, on decision-making, on making our way in this world. There seemed to be less interested in what really happens to us as human beings, in how we relate to each other, the care of our souls. The answers to those questions may be hidden in the depths of the report but I haven’t taken the time for in-depth analysis, just a quick scan and impatiently at that (which by the way, is the sign of a hyper-connected person).

However, I think there were some brilliant analyses and insights provided by the many experts who participated. Here is an example from Barry Chudakov, a Florida-based consultant and a research fellow in the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology at the University of Toronto.

He wrote that by 2020,

“Technology will be so seamlessly integrated into our lives that it will
effectively disappear. The line between self and technology is thin today; by then it will
effectively vanish. We will think with, think into, and think through our smart tools but their presence and reach into our lives will be less visible. Youth will assume their minds and intentions are extended by technology, while tracking technologies will seek further incursions into behavioral monitoring and choice manipulation. Children will assume this is the way the world works. The cognitive challenge children and youth will face (as we are beginning to face now) is integrity, the state of being whole and undivided. There will be a premium on the skill of maintaining presence, of mindfulness, of awareness in the face of persistent and pervasive tool extensions and incursions into our lives. Is this my intention, or is the tool inciting me to feel and think this way? That question, more than multitasking or brain atrophy due to accessing collective intelligence via the internet, will be the challenge of the future.”

(emphasis mine–but I think Chudakov comes close to the soul of the matter with this comment)

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

Has social media increased trust in mainstream news?

Posted on February 28, 2012 by gbaron

It’s not news that American news consumers don’t think much of the media’s news reporting. I’ve seen a number of studies and they all hover around 20% trust in the news. That’s a whopping 80% who say they don’t have much trust. Those numbers were confirmed by a study commissioned by Craig Newmark of craigslist fame and published on his site craigconnects.org. The survey results are neatly presented in this infographic published on that site.

The answer–by more than 2 to 1 the respondents said social media has a negative impact on news coverage. 17% said positive, 34% said negative impact. I find that fascinating and would love to understand the reasons why so many think it is negative.

An even more important and interesting question asked of the 1001 and survey respondents was what factors do they consider most important in news coverage. Here’s the summary:

- Speed (first to report the story) 6%
- Free 8%
- In-depth analysis 23%
- trustworthy 49%

The remaining percentage was refused to respond or don’t know.

I have a feeling this is one of those survey questions where people’s behavior doesn’t match the way they answer the question. If that were the case, only truly responsible news outlets would be getting the audience. The fact is, ratings show that other factors are critically important including speed, emotional content, compelling story telling, striking visuals, etc. As much as I am critical of today’s news coverage (as any frequent reader here will recognize) the people running these channels are not dumb–they are giving people what they want.

Trust is somewhat of a slippery concept as we can see in the extreme partisanship of news coverage. Where some would say they trust Sean Hannity others would say they trust Rachel Maddow. Trust has an awful lot to do with our starting point, not some sort of objective measurement to which we can all essentially agree. The fact that the study shows greater trust in mainstream media among Democrats than Republicans may simply be an indication that the mainstream media for a long time has been more aligned with Democratic ideas and values than that Dems are inherently more trusting than Republicans.

Before I go wandering off into politics here, let’s bring this back to crisis communication. The opportunity here is huge for those who understand that increasingly they are the broadcaster. That means the inherent lack of trust in media, and in social media, can work to the advantage of official communicators BUT only if their organization and leaders understand that nothing is more important than protecting their credibility. That means being completely and unflinchingly honest. It means that telling everything is as important as telling the truth in what you do tell. That’s where it gets hard, but trust is built when you willingly and openly disclose the ugly truth, even when–no, especially when, it really hurts.

 

Posted in Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment