Responsible Journalism in The Social Media Era

The court of law still holds firm in the presumption of innocence or that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. However, as witnessed in two recent events the 24 hour news cycle has taken a life of its own and now seems to drive the process of presuming guilt or innocence. Media now acts as the judge, the jury, and the executioner and calls the defendant before the court of public opinion. From there, the court of public opinion often relentlessly renders a “guilty” verdict based on hearsay prior to any factual evidence being disclosed.

BMF's Weekly Roundup

A weekly roundup of the best local and national articles from around the web in topics relating to public relations, marketing, social media, advertising, and/or communications. Stay informed and enjoy!

Reporter Bias or Just Bad Journalism?

Reporters sometimes run afoul of us and our clients by exhibiting in subtle (or not so subtle form) biases in the words they use to describe a certain incident, person or circumstance.  This is quite common actually.  In this regard, using adjectives such as “massive” to describe an oil spill or “lucrative” to describe a particular contract are good examples that are subject to debate and interpretation.  After all, who is to say what is actually massive or lucrative?  By what standard is that judged?  Massive, or lucrative as compared to what?

Inadvertently (perhaps) these words can serve to both bias the reader and demonstrate a bias on the part of a reporter as well.

Carrying this a step further, consider the reporting (not editorial commentary mind you) by USA Today reporter Yamiche Alcindor in the paper’s June 10 edition. In a front page article to preview the first day of the George Zimmerman trial for the shooting of Trayvon Martin, reporter Alcindor seems to deliberately but oh so subtly betray her biases regarding the case by continually referring to the defendant as “Zimmerman” while referring 100% of the time to the deceased victim as “Trayvon”.   In case you haven’t seen the article but would like to keep score that’s 21 references to George Zimmerman as “Zimmerman”, and 0 as “George”, and 21 references to Trayvon Martin as “Trayvon”and 0 as “Martin”. 

“Trayvon”?  Did Alcindor know him personally?  Were they friends? Is Alcindor showing some particular added level of respect for him because he was a minor or because he was killed?  Why are they, and not “Zimmerman” on a first name basis?

While I have no skin in this particular game and frankly think that guilt or innocence in this case may lie somewhere in between, I do believe it to be an absolute fact that reporter Alcindor and the editor who allowed this story to go to print that way are either very biased in their opinions of this case or should be re-trained to do the jobs they’ve been hired to do.  Every first year journalism student is taught to refer to persons they’re covering as Mr. / Ms. or by last name only, rather than treating their subjects like personal friends and acquaintances.   This should be done consistently and should apply to each person in their stories.

I love journalism and have, for the very most part, tremendous respect for the people who practice journalism as a trade.  But there’s no place for the kind of biased, shoddy but subtle reporting exhibited by USA Today on June 10.  And there’s little wonder our clients are increasingly cynical about the motives and fairness of reporters who use such tactics to bury their opinions in what purports to be an otherwise fact-based and independent story.

Media Tricks of the Trade

One of the things we run into when we’re media training clients or helping them deal with media on a potentially damaging issue is the ingrained belief that  “reporters are out to get us,” and that “no matter what I say they’ll make me look bad.”

People - corporate people in particular (and those who’ve been watching way too much “60 Minutes”) are inherently cynical about the motives and methods of the media.  They’ve seen far too many examples of what they believe are biased reports that only tell the story that reporter or his editors want to tell, or instances where the subject of an interview is sandbagged or ambushed and comes off looking evasive, guilty or downright stupid.

To set the record straight, my associates at BMF and I don’t believe that most reporters operate that way (note the emphasis on most.  Yes, I’m talking about you Sheri Fink).  In our combined 75 years of handling media and dealing with all types of reporters, we’ve come to understand that most reporters are simply trying to do a job, to tell a story and to present the facts as they understand them.

That’s not to say that they’re all as honorable or fair, or as educated about the topics they cover as we wish they would be.  Or to say that they don’t employ certain tools or tactics or even tricks to make a point or get what they want.  In point of fact, there are a variety of “tricks of the trade” that good (and not so good) reporters often use as they craft a story and interview the people who are central to it.

Let’s explore a few of the most common of these tactics now, as well as what you can do to avoid falling victim to them.

1.    It’s 5 O’clock Somewhere.  This is the particular trick that drives most PR professionals and PIOs up a tree: reporters who really don’t want your side of the story but feel obligated (by their editor or producer) to make a half-hearted effort to reach you for a comment.  So, they wait until just before or just after they think your office has closed for the day and leave you a lame voice mail: “Hey…been trying to reach you for a comment on a story I’m doing.  I’ve got a deadline that’s coming up and I’d really like to include your comments blah, blah, blah….”

Interestingly, every single reporter - even the really good ones you can always trust to be fair and square - will deny that this ever takes place.  (In this sense, reporters are like grade school boys who pull a prank and won’t rat out their friends, even if they are subject to punishment in the process.)

The recourse you have in responding to this type of tactic depends largely on whether the story actually runs without you or whether you’re given more time to participate.  If the story runs with the ubiquitous “A company spokesperson failed to respond to our calls for a comment,”  you have every right and reason to tell the reporter that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and unfair, and that you would have been happy to have provided a comment if contacted in a timely manner.   Stress that going forward you are more than willing to provide comment and be as accessible as you can be but that honest communication is a two-way street.

2.    Rumor Has it… This “trick” actually has a legitimate role in reporting whether we always like it or not.  It goes like this:  “I have been told by a credible source that…. Can you confirm that this is true?”  Essentially you’re being asked to confirm, deny or validate a comment attributed or allegedly attributed to a third-party source the reporter is unable or unwilling to identify.

The legitimacy of this approach lies in the fact that reporters often do have “inside sources” who are knowledgeable and credible and who are important to that reporter’s ability to do his or her job.  Simply put, they can’t afford to name their sources without getting them in trouble (and losing a valuable resource or even friend in the process).

So, how to handle this line of questioning?  Two options exist that may be acceptable.  One is to tell the reporter you don’t respond to rumor or innuendo.  This approach basically says that you don’t care one whit about their source (which may make you feel better but doesn’t stop the reporter from running the story and certainly doesn’t allow you to get in your point of view).  The other option is to forget the fact that the rumor came from an unnamed source and simply answer the question and defend your position (after all, the real issue here is not where the rumor came from but whether or not it is true).

If you believe the rumor or allegation to be unfair or untrue, don’t hesitate to tell the reporter in the strongest terms you feel appropriate that their source is a poor one who should have no credibility with the reporter in the future.  Stake your ground and stand pat ONLY if you are fully confident that you’re correct.

3.    This Seems to be a Habit.  Reporters and their producers or editorial support staff will often search the archives and the internet to find out more about you and your company, including past lawsuits, environmental issues, penalties or fines, past accidents, worksite injuries or deaths, and even comments and allegations made about you by third-party organizations and activists.  They do this to better educate themselves about your company AND sometimes to help them reinforce an image of you they intend to paint for the reading or viewing public.

Fair or not, this is very commonplace in reporting and it can often lead to using a current issue (lawsuit, oil spill, etc.) as a way to rehash old stories that have absolutely no bearing on the here and now: “Back in 2004 and 2006 you had similar problems at another plant.  Does this represent some kind of corporate-wide weakness in your safety training and processes?”

What’s important in your response is a refusal to get led down the rabbit hole into a debate over things that happened long ago and have no bearing on what’s happening today.  Our recommended response briefly addresses the reporter’s premise but then moves quickly on to refocusing the discussion to what’s really relevant: “I understand your interest in that incident from several years ago but right now our only priority is to ensure the health and safety of the employees, responders and our neighbors, and to protect the environment from any impact. I’ll be happy to answer questions regarding what’s relevant to why you’re here today.”

One more piece of advice on this subject that applies in general to interviews - tricks or no tricks:  remember that it’s your interview!  Don’t let a reporter set the tone for the conversation and don’t feel compelled to answer questions on their terms.  Go into the interview with what you want to say firmly in mind and make a continuous commitment to making those points over and over.

Finally, if you’re committed to dealing with the reporter in an honest and fair manner you have every right and reason to expect and demand the same treatment.  Stand up for your rights, politely and in a spirit of cooperation if at all possible and let the reporter know that you’re holding them to the same standards you’ve set for yourself.

Why Your Company Needs an Employee Social Media Policy (Now!)

A recent vessel incident reminded us in very clear terms of the need for every company to have a strict and clearly defined employee social media policy regarding company operations, issues and incidents. Companies without such a policy are asking for trouble, not just for themselves but also for their employees.

In the incident mentioned above, our client had no policy governing employee use of social media tools such as Twitter or Facebook, or policies which advise employees against commenting on news stories about the company that appear on mainstream news websites. While we quickly provided our client with guidance that was conveyed to their employees and crew members aboard the ship, at least one crew member ignored the policy and peppered his Facebook page with statements that inflamed the situation, prolonged media interest and may have created liability issues for himself and his employer.

While this instance is the most recent of this type, it is far from the only one we’ve had to help manage since social media tools became such a prolific way to share information and opinions and such a valuable source of insights and news angles for reporters and media outlets.

(As a parallel, several years ago we helped manage a nasty vessel incident in Oklahoma in which a crew member told a daily newspaper reporter that he “feared for his life”. In truth I’m sure he did but this is hardly the kind of reassuring picture of a well ordered and managed professional incident response the company and his crewmates would have preferred to have promoted.)

Companies and their employees need to understand that reporters and their producers are highly industrious people who make a living out of finding out things no one else knows or has ready access to: things like employee names, cell phone numbers, home addresses, spouse or parent contact information, and yes, Facebook page and Twitter handles. In the Oklahoma barge incident, reporters from the vessel pilot’s hometown even managed to find his home address, pestering family members and neighbors for “the inside scoop” on his health, work habits and more.

In this more recent example cited above, like most people, this crew member wanted all the “friends” he could get, and he quickly accepted a friend request from a reporter for a major media outlet who then proceeded to interview” the crew member via Facebook posts. The results were highly problematic for the company and crew member even though the crewman in question had the company’s best interests at heart.

Creating and Implementing a Social Media Policy

Company social media policies don’t have to be long or complicated but they do need to explain why the policy is in place, who it is meant to protect and what very specific types of external communication it covers.

Typically, social media policies we help to write and implement explain that the policy is designed to help limit the liability of the company and the employee by taking employees out of a dynamic that might unwittingly make them the purveyor of false, misleading or proprietary information that then becomes a matter of public record and potential litigation. In other words, the policy is just as much about protecting the employee as it is about protecting the employer.

Employees should be made to understand that posting on the internet- news websites or via social media (Twitter, Facebook, text, etc.,) is the same thing as talking to a reporter in a live interview format. It’s just as dangerous and just as public as looking into a camera and saying whatever comes to mind.

The policy should also remind employees to tell their family members to use caution in posting or transmitting any information shared regarding an incident, accident or legal, personnel or environmental issue. While the company cant and shouldn’t attempt to control what family members say on-line or via text, employees and their family members should understand that they may do more harm than good by sharing their personal feelings or insights via social media, and that they too may be opening themselves up for liability issues in the process.

Of course the real value of a social media policy for both the company and its employees lies in the fact that adhering to the policy allows the company to speak with one consistent and informed voice on its own behalf and on behalf of its employees.

One other word of caution: The whole concept of employee free speech is highly sensitive and legal interpretations of what is permissible and what can be restricted is subject to debate and discussion. Companies interested in protecting their interests and their employees should consult with their labor attorney (and BMF!) before drafting and implementing a social media policy that leaves them open to their own level of liability.

For assistance in drafting and implementing your own company social media policy, contact Jordan Haedicke at BMF, jhaedicke@e-bmf.com

The Importance of the Liaison Function in an Effective IC Structure

There's little doubt that the most under-utilized, and therefore, the least effective function in most Incident Command structures is the role of Liaison Officer. And while all the other functions (Finance, Safety, Logistics, etc.) play obviously important roles in an incident response, that doesn't mean the Liaison function should be relegated to the sidelines of a response, or that the role as defined by NIMS, should be limited only to what NIMS stipulates.

For our money, most response and spill managers vastly under-value the Liaison function, seeming to "check the box" and activate it only as an income stream rather than as an important link in the Incident Command structure. Time and again we've seen spill managers fill that role on paper only and utilize it passively rather than as a pro-active link between Command and the external stakeholders who in turn, play a powerful role in communicating to the media, the public and their own stakeholders what they know and how they feel about the effectiveness of an incident response.

Even more often, the Liaison Officer only becomes active when external agencies, trade associations such as commercial fishermen and ports, elected officials, green groups and property owners become agitated and demand attention and answers. By then it is often too late as leaders of these groups are often ready sources of commentary for the news media and their peers, providing often highly critical opinions of the incident response-all because an inactive or non-existent Liaison Officer hasn't reached out to open lines of communication and answered a few basic questions.

In November 2002, BMF was mobilized as Liaison into the 265,000 gallon spill of the Greek tanker Athos in the Delaware River off of Philadelphia two weeks after the spill occurred. While the response was well managed, the Liaison function was virtually ignored to that point, and local agencies, environmental groups, land owners along the river, boat club operators, fishermen and elected officials representing three states, a dozen counties and scores of local governments were howling for answers. Too often, they were also frequently in the news raising legitimate complaints about the lack of information from the IC.

On day one of our arrival we began an exhaustive review of media clips to see who was commenting and what their concerns were, and we developed a large database of elected officials, local governments, relevant local agencies, business and trade groups and environmental organizations along with pertinent contact information for each.

By day two we were on the phone opening lines of communication, listening to real people with real concerns vent about subjects important to them, and apologizing for being late "out of the gate" with points of contact and meaningful information.

On day three we hit the road, taking with us three Coast Guard PIOs and spending much of the next several days banging on doors, meeting opinion leaders face to face, answering questions, addressing complaints and gradually stemming the tide of unhappy comments that appeared in the media. Weeks later, even after BMF had been demobilized from the IC and the response wrapped up, we were still getting calls from those community contacts we had made along the way who felt as though we were a friendly and readily available ear they could call on for factual and timely information.

Conversely, while there were many positive aspects of the massive response to the April 2010, Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a weakness of sorts in that response was the quick and comprehensive mobilization of a large and experienced Liaison function staff. Several weeks after the spill occurred, the IC was still in the process of recruiting often untrained liaison staff and gathering databases of important stakeholders and stakeholder organizations. Too little, too late, with so much riding on prompt and efficient outreach and communication.

The lessons here: Make staffing the Liaison function with a qualified, aggressive Liaison Officer a priority and not an after-thought. Move quickly to reach out and not simply lay back waiting for interested and aggrieved parties to track the IC down. Just as the best defense is a good offense, a good, well rounded incident response takes more than just a strong PIO to educate and inform the public through the media. Get real value out of your Liaison by giving that function the directives and credibility they deserve from day one.

Bounty Gate: A Game Plan for Repairing the Saints’ Tarnished Halo

As a New Orleanian I’m saddened and disappointed by the Bounty Gate scandal and can’t wait for it to go away.  In reality though, there’s more tough sledding ahead for the Saints as we await possible penalties and sanctions against at least some players, and the ultimate indignity of road games where fans of other teams and their loyal media will have a field day at our expense.


While Americans love an underdog and a “feel good story” like the Saints and the city post-Katrina, Americans are just as quick to turn on their heroes when they prove they’re all too human.  (Just ask Tiger Woods or Barry Bonds).  We often remind our clients that the “good will bank” of public opinion is depleted far faster than it is built up.


But as much as I hate this whole Bounty Gate thing, I am equally unhappy with how too many Saints fans and even some local media and Saints insiders have tried to paint the Saints (and the city) as victims, somehow seeking to make the league and the Commissioner the bad guys in all this.


Their whining is ugly, juvenile and non-stop in some circles.  It speaks poorly of a city that fought its way through the long aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and a region that persevered severe economic and perceptual damage following the massive April 2010 Gulf oil spill.  We’re tougher than that.  We’re better than that.  And we don’t deserve anyone’s sympathy for what many in the Saints organization willingly did over an extended period of time.  We’re not talking a one-time lapse of judgment here.  We’re talking purposefully creating and fostering a culture that rewards wrong-doing and personal harm.


Saints’ apologists and conspiracy theorists who believe “the NFL is out to get us” or dismiss the league’s undisputed findings (backed up with confessions and video tape) with comments such as “everybody does it” simply don’t get it and probably never will.


But perhaps a little perspective may be of help. In the real world (outside professional sports), if one person puts a contract on another to do him bodily harm and render him unable to do his job, earn a living and support his family there’s jail time involved.  In the real world this is serious stuff.  It’s against the law not just against “league policy”.


In the NFL by comparison, there’s a slap on the wrist—loss of draft picks, season-long, half season or multi-game suspensions that inconvenience the fans and hurt the team’s chances of success.  Honestly speaking--big deal.


What transpired in the Saints’ locker room and, it seems, on the field was wrong and is beyond excuse.  No amount of whining, martyrdom, or attempting to shift the blame will make those involved any more innocent or, importantly, make opposing teams demonstrably guilty of these same offenses. The known facts are beyond dispute.


So where should the Saints go from here to repair their tarnished halo?  The first rule of successful crisis management is to treat a crisis as a crisis.  The second rule is to take decisive steps to make it end and not simply paper over it.  The time is now for the leadership in the Saints organization, including its players, coaches and front office personnel to take their punishment like adult men. This also involves telling the whiners and apologists to put a lid on it.  The reputational damage to the Saints’ halo is extensive. It can only be improved by admitting their mistakes, suffering the consequences of their actions, holding themselves fully accountable for making responsible decisions in the future, and by holding their die-hard fans to those same standards in addressing and acknowledging these ugly issues.


A positive step in repairing the damage is to help others learn from it.  The Saints organization, Foundation and individual players themselves should move aggressively and generously to engage and support important non-profits in the region that promote and foster the kind of character that some on the team seem to have been lacking: The values of teamwork, fair play, clean competition and sportsmanship.  Worthy organizations such as Play Works, which works with inner city schools to teach these lessons and the importance of non-violent conflict resolution could certainly use some of the dollars the players, coaches and personnel have been spending to rough up opposing players.  Something tells me those responsible for the mess the Saints are in could also learn some basic life lessons in character and self-discipline in the process.


-Greg Beuerman