BadNewsHandbook.com by Steven Silvers
I was speaking at a legal workshop when a general counsel asked about evading reporters to delay or kill a negative story. Isn't it best to refuse to communicate with news media until all the facts are known, he asked, and there’s some “good news” to tell?
No. You can’t stop media from reporting a legitimate breaking news story any more than you can push water uphill with a fork. Not only do your pants get wet, but you look like an idiot.
What drives media coverage of your company's crisis or controversy is being first with the headline, and then being first with new information as the situation unfolds. An editor or producer has no obligation to include -- much less wait for -- your company's spin of the story.
In the analog days, we'd say that a story didn’t have to be complete because “there’s always another newspaper tomorrow.” Then we’d wait for it on the porch while enjoying our Tab and Space Food Sticks.
Today, however, updated and expanded versions of a story are delivered as fast as it takes to upload. Confirmations and clarifications, new discoveries, allegations, comment strings, Facebook posts, Tweets and real-time video spread across the ether with mind-blowing speed to form an information ecosystem that didn’t exist only hours before.
Not responding to a negative news story means you're adding another layer of risk to your company's reputation. You leave it to reporters to discover details you don’t have or don’t want to share. Information and speculation get rushed into the narrative, regardless of accuracy.
In most cases you prolong the bad publicity you were trying to avoid.
One more thing. The more obstinate your company in not responding to bad news, the more it becomes part of the story -- even the more damaging PR crisis.
Does that mean you must have answers to every question? Of course not. But there’s a huge difference between hiding under the desk and making a sincere effort to explain what you can and can't discuss. Engaging news media with sincerity during an emerging crisis -- including why you can't comment -- is a credibility factor. You may even get some breathing room to put new information in your context before it goes live.
The rule is the same whether you’re dealing with good or bad news: Say only what you know to be true.
But say it. Your company will be better for it.
(CorpComm Blog) How'd you like to slog off to work every morning knowing that your customers don’t trust you? That sums up the life of local journalists, say two recent reports. Here’s why it matters: Because it will likely skew how your town's news media cover your company’s next PR crisis.
A recent Gallup Poll found that barely three out of every ten Americans trust what they see in the news. And on CareerCast’s 2016 list of the 200 worst jobs, newspaper reporter ranked dead last, with broadcasters taking bragging rights for being only the nation’s third-worst career. The annual list takes into account working environment, income, growth potential and stress factors.
Of all which means that too many local reporters are overworked, underpaid, unappreciated and isolated in newsrooms that have neither time nor money to let them truly engage and understand the arenas they cover – especially the business world. This can lead to a fatalistic, cynical view of the world that steers even talented reporters down the path of least resistance, characterized by shallow, clichéd conflict stories that provide inaccurate or no context, and that give equal weight to any “contrasting” source, no matter its lack of credibility.
For companies responding to complex crisis situations, this dog-tired and formulaic approach to journalism can result in undeserved damage to their hard-earned reputation.
While it certainly doesn’t exist in every market, it’s important to anticipate this predisposition to fast-food local journalism, especially if your company’s crisis communications strategy is to speak with reporters. The best way to prepare -- aside from knowing your facts, messaging and how to handle interviews -- is to deliver as much concrete, articulate information as possible. Dish it up on the proverbial silver platter in easily digestible portions.
A seasoned and solid journalist will appreciate the directness, which will help ensure an accurate story. And for the over-worked and disconnected reporter, the closer you approach “add water and stir,” the better the chances the resulting story will accurately represent your company's position. Quite often it’ll be included verbatim.
What’s happened to local journalism – and especially local business reporting – is tragic. But the unvarnished reality is that today’s lean media environment, with its ratings pressures and “pay by the click” compensation, forces many local reporters into being glorified stenographer-provocateurs looking for edgy or emotional angles.
Be aware and ready.
(CorpComm Blog) -- When Facebook deleted the famous “Napalm girl” photograph because it violated policy on showing nude children, the Norwegian newspaper editor who posted it wagged a rather sanctimonious finger at CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
"The media have a responsibility to consider publication [of stories] in every single case," wrote Espen Egil Hansen, editor at Norway’s largest newspaper, in an open letter to Mr. Zuckerberg. "This right and duty, which all editors in the world have, should not be undermined by algorithms encoded in your office in California."
The historically iconic photograph was allowed after a loud show of protest and support from Facebook members around the world -- a response that underscores the collective power of social media communities to police themselves on standards. The outcome of this dispute was as it should be.
However. In reporting the reversed deletion, the world's news media -- some behaving like this was another Scopes trial -- failed to emphasize that the Norwegian newspaper was using Facebook first and foremost as a no-cost marketing tool. “You are offering us a great channel for distributing our content,” Hansen wrote. “We want to reach out with our journalism.” (So do other business concerns besides newspapers.)
But then Mr. Hansen told “dear Mark” that “Even though I am editor-in-chief of Norway’s largest newspaper… you are restricting my room for exercising my editorial responsibility.”
Post me confused.
I read through Facebook’s entire investor prospectus. And nowhere is there anything about the company being beholden to anyone’s “exercising of editorial responsibility.”
Especially to a commercial newspaper using Facebook for free publicity and promotion.
Over time, the clunky synergy between social and news media will either achieve mutually-beneficial equilibrium or reshape itself completely, like home pages and other content aggregation movements of the internet age. Mr. Zuckerberg sees this as making Facebook the "perfect personalized newspaper for everyone in the world."
Even if that's where things are headed, we should be cautious about holding Facebook and other corporate-owned social media services accountable for not behaving like the news journalism companies they aren’t.
Delivering the milk doesn’t make you a cow.
(CorpCommBlog.com) -- National Public Radio has joined the growing number of online media outlets that no longer show public comments at the bottom of news stories.
In case you’re new to this WWW thing: Many comment sections have been commandeered by small groups of mostly anonymous "trolls" who shout down and ridicule anyone with opposing opinions, often with incredibly violent imagery and hate speech. And don't get us started about punctuation.
Many news sites held on – and still do -- to comment sections in part because they create space to sell ads, without the nuisance of paying journalists for content. These days, however, social media platforms offer more civil, cost-efficient ways to facilitate public dialogue around sponsors’ interests. The result is that media sites are dropping comment sections as a well-intentioned but failed, high-maintenance vestige of a simpler Internet time.
But not all. One ticked-off supporter of comment sections is Breitbart News, the hyper-populist, anti-lefty media site whose chairman is now running Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Hostile partisan vitriol is what outlets like Breitbart and the anti-righty Daily Kos are selling, and they have plenty of followers (including trolls). But these aren’t products that attract mainstream advertisers and promotions. It’s commerce, not comments, that keep most online media in business.
Time Magazine underscores the problem with its cover story, “How Trolls are ruining the Internet.” Some 80% of the 93-year-old magazine's own writers said they don't cover certain topics because they fear the online response. Sometimes the attackers will track down and harass a writer's spouse, parents, even children.
Despite America’s chaotically contradictory Internet culture, it would seem that the bulk of news comment sections are heading toward extinction as new ways to engage the virtual public square become more advanced. What the Internet mob does as a result is a whole other consideration.
Influence Chronicles Blog
Field notes on the forces and sources of public truth.
Influence Chronicles blog and executive e-letter are published by SilversJacobson, a corporate reputation and crisis management firm based in Denver and Washington, D.C. Call anytime at (720) 645-1164.
To submit ideas, articles or other material for future posts, please send with name and phone number to input(at)influencechronicles.com. And it's more likely that we'll consider submitted posts if they have something to do with what our blog is about. Just sayin'.