Many PR crisis specialists believe that not replying to a negative news article is tantamount to an admission of guilt and that it must be answered.
I’ve never agreed with that. I’ve always believed that it depends on the circumstances.
If the article is about a major incident, of course the entity or individual has to respond, but not in my opinion, before conferring with corporate lawyers, many of whom are media savvy.
It has been my experience that many PR people believe that every negative news article deserves to be handled as if it was a major problem. However, experience shows that unless it is a situation that involves loss of life or can result in future health or physical injuries to consumers, I’ve always counseled let’s wait a day or two to see if the story has legs, because in many cases it will disappear after one or two news cycles.
If it doesn’t, waiting a day or two before responding provides the time to gather information and craft a response that will not have to be corrected because of a rush statement that is inaccurate. In the meantime, a general statement like, “We’re gathering facts about the situation and we will issue a statement when our investigation is complete,” should suffice. It might not satisfy the media, but a PR person’s priority is to protect the client during a crisis situation.
The worst thing an entity can do is to try to convince the media that an entity is not responsible for a situation or that the media is exaggerating a minor incident. Responses from Boeing, BP and Wells Fargo, to name a few, are examples of companies that attempted to stem the negative media by blaming others. But Mr. Trump didn’t learn how those company’s actions resulted in months of negative media coverage. Instead, he mimicked their playbook and turned what could have been a one or two day story into a soap opera-like saga.
Doing so has resulted in prolonged negative media coverage for Donald Trump
It’s now been more than (Richard, please insert the number based on when you intend to post this, If you do), weeks since the former president attempted to use an Arlington National Cemetery memorial ceremony into a political event. And likely it will remain in the news until Election Day, maybe not every day, but certainly when vice president Kamala Harris and others remind voters of what the former president said about John McCain in particular and the military in general.
A short recap: On Aug. 26, during a ceremony honoring American soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery, the Trump team attempted to take pictures when a cemetery’s public affairs official tried to stop them from filming because of rules prohibiting anything political at the cemetery. A member of Trump’s team pushed aside the official.
The incident received news coverage and the Army considered the matter closed. But the Trump team didn’t and publicly defended its actions, by claiming that the Arlington official had a mental problem, and also by violating the military cemetery’s law of not using the cemetery for political purposes by posting photos on social media.
The Army defended the individual who tried to uphold the rules and said an aide to Mr. Trump had “abruptly pushed aside” an Arlington National Cemetery employee who had sought to enforce restrictions on taking photos and video for political purposes.
The incident at the cemetery resulted in veteran organizations and individual veterans criticizing Mr. Trump for creating an incident on sacred ground. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump continued to defend his actions and blame others for “a made up story.”
There are several important PR lessons to remember from the incident
- Never lie to the press. It always results in negative publicity as reporters dig into the story.
- Do not try to gaslight the press by attempting to blame others. It always results in negative publicity as reporters dig into the story.
- An individual or entity that accepts blame for an incident gains credibility with the media. (However, always check with the corporate attorney before doing so.)
- Trying to intimidate the media by claiming that they are biased does not stop them from reporting on a situation. Conversely, cooperating with the media during their reporting about a situation might result in lessening negative reporting (but not eliminating it entirely).
- In a situation involving an individual, a quick apology can put an end to negative coverage. But instead of apologizing, Mr. Trump defended his actions, including a statement that it is a made-up story, thus giving legs to a story that will probably last until the election and after.
By continuing to play the victim of a biased press and Army, the former president broke a cardinal PR rule: Tell the truth. Not doing so always leads to a “he said, she said” situation that results in continuing negative news coverage.
