When faced with an emerging issue or crisis, damage control is often a tricky business. This scenario is especially true when it comes to no win situations when there is nothing to gain and plenty to lose in the media spotlight.

While “no comment” is never a viable option, we often counsel clients to prepare messages or statements and then wait for the media to call. Rather than proactively calling a news conference and issuing news releases, we advise them to react to media inquiries in order to limit the coverage on a negative situation.

So how do you decide if a reactive approach is best? How do you balance the need to inform with the need to keep a low profile? A scandal that rocked Toronto City Hall recently provides some interesting lessons on the benefits of a reactive versus proactive approach.

In late September, the Toronto Star reported that Pam Coburn, executive director of municipal licensing and standards, had been placed on paid leave, along with Joseph Carnevale, director of investigations for MLS. Allegations had been made that Coburn and Carnevale were hiring their friends for high-paying jobs instead of allowing an open competition.

The story quickly developed and the following day the Star reported that questions were surfacing about whether Coburn favoured Carnevale. He started as a temporary employee the previous year and was quickly promoted into several jobs before becoming director in June. City councilors said questions were being raised about whether there was an inappropriate relationship. 

At this point, Carnevale wisely refused to comment on the investigation and dismissed suggestions of any inappropriate behaviour. Coburn, on the other hand, conducted tearful interviews claiming her attempts to clean up her department may have made her a target.

Coburn’s next move was to hold a news conference. With her children at her side, she admitted she and Carnevale were ‘soul mates’ and blamed City Hall for its lack of ground rules governing office romances. Her revelations escalated the story even further while she fueled the fire with interview appearances on local radio and national television. Carnevale remained silent (he is married with three young children while Coburn is a divorced, single mother). The story hit the front page of the Globe and Mail, complete with photo of Ms. Coburn above the fold.

Two days after the news conference Coburn and Carnevale were dismissed. 

What lessons can we learn from this story?

1. Prepare messages and anticipate the tough questions media are likely to ask in advance–and then stick to your script. Follow Mr. Carnevale‘s approach: Dismiss suggestions of impropriety (as long as it’s true) and don’t comment on an on-going investigation.
2. Unless there‘s a big up-side to taking a pro-active stance with the media (which there wasn’t in Ms. Coburn‘s situation), handle inquiries as they come, rather than seeking media attention.
3. If inquiries become overwhelming, prepare a short statement and make it available to the media.
4. If you’re feeling emotional about the situation, assign a spokesperson to speak to the media on your behalf. Tearful interviews from government officials don’t inspire confidence with constituents.
5. Don’t use your kids as a shield.
6. Monitor media coverage and adjust your messaging and strategy accordingly (in some cases, it can make sense to change a reactive approach to a proactive approach).
7. Consider how your comments will affect other people’s lives (we suspect that Coburn‘s statements devastated Carnevale and his family).

While these tactics certainly won’t make a bad situation disappear, they will at least help you ride out the storm of curiosity. Interest will eventually fade as other stories take over the headlines.

Tags: crisis communiations, public relations
Posted in Public relations |