Mangling Social Media in a Crisis

[...] Checkmate public affairs blog came to a similar conclusion as Levitt in its review of Navigator’s public relations performance. [...]

so if I understand you correctly, you think that the public relations effort behind Bryant
should
is obligated to
carry on a dialogue with you and others about the upcoming trial

is that right?

you do realise it may be next year before the case is actually tried before a judge, right?

how wise would it be to discuss the case with the people who participate in social media?
that could end up being a full time job

do you expect them to divulge facts about the case and argue opinions?

how does that make sense?

is that what you would advise a client using social media? a client facing serious criminal charges?

if you were facing a court date, how would you be “harnessing the power of social media”?

you state “What is their version of the truth?  We may never know. ”
Let me suggest that you attend the trial or read credible news reports when the time comes.

you actually believe that posting more and more information about the case from the view of the defence will NOT “make the problem even worse”?

if they were to begin “engaging the public or engaging in real conversation” what do you think is likely to happen?

Allan: I think the problem here is that the Public expects more from a PR firm. Bryant has said very little to the Public, and has shown little remorse for the death of the cyclist. The social networking initiative seems like a token gesture, suggesting Navigator’s “real PR” is happening behind the scenes. Is that blog the full extent of Navigator’s VIP services?

Allan: Thank you for your… ‘comments.’

What I am suggesting is that is the role of the blog and the Twitter feed is to communicate, then quite simply, they aren’t communicating.

“Social” media implies a degree of social interaction. Right now, the only social interaction I can see is an anonymous rebuttal saying ‘No, you’re wrong. So there.’

There are so many things that could have been done here, none of which damage the pursuit of justice. For example – how hard would it be to post a video link showing Bryant’s expression of condolence to the family?

Heck, you can even take it one step back – if they’re going to take the time to rebut allegations, at least do so with links to verifiable information. especially if that information is already part of public domain. Saying “no, you’re wrong because I said so” is quite simply, a gross waste of money and the public’s time.

I would understand completely if Bryant chose to simply shut up and let the trial take place in it’s natural time. But he was the one who hired a PR firm. Bryant opened that can of worms, supposedly in an effort to improve his reputation. But whether it’s the lawyers ordering a clampdown on the release of information, or a PR flack who simply has no clue, it appears they’re trying to use a hammer without taking it out of the plastic wrap.

JH: those are valid points.
“the Public expects more from a PR firm.”
Yes, I guess we’re conditioned to expect hype and flag waving, but this case is different. Different because there’s a criminal trial outstanding, and everyone must be careful. Especially the defendant.
There’s a very valid reason that an accused person will be advised by their lawyer to not take the stand, and it’s a tricky situation.
Did Guy Paul Morin testify? Did Steven Truscott?
Even a completely innocent person can be made to look guilty under the cross examination of a skilled lawyer.
I think Navigator is not there to “sell” a product so much as to do damage control.
And when it comes to the internet I think they have a legitimate right to speak up and set right any misinformation or rumours that have nothing behind them. And I think they can be allowed to do so without have to “come clean” and offer up statements beyond what is at issue.
Now that it’s been revealed that a PR firm is at work on behalf of Bryant, any and every positive statement seen or heard about him is going to be treated with suspicion.
So for these reasons the PR firm is wise to practise restraint. A lot of restraint.

Also, when it comes to the net and social media, there are a lot of people out there who are looking for a fight, and just waiting for the slightest excuse.
The writer of this post comes off that way.

The internet and social media has made it possible to push the limits of acceptable, even legal, behaviour when it comes to what can be published.
Mass media must behave with the utmost care. Bloggers seem to think they can get away with just about anything.

There’s a reason, a valid reason, why someone should seek the counsel of a PR firm, just as it’s wise to get legal advice before making decisions that have ramifications.
Most people involved in high drama don’t always think straight, and emotions can get the better of all of us.

The statement that Bryant delivered on camera is textbook PR, and also the only appropriate response. One could have guessed exactly what he was going to say.
I agree with you, JH, that Bryant hardly seemed the slightest repentant over being involved in the death of Darcy Sheppard. He came off as angry that he was forced to say anything, and far from sincere when everyone’s heart in Toronto went out to the family and friends of Darcy.

Jeff: your main beef seems to be that if someone is going to use social media programs then they are obligated to be sociable.
Well, I think we both know that the really are almost no rules to what goes on on the Internet. People do whatever they want.
Some bloggers don’t allow comments, while others only display comments that are favourable to the blogger.
What are you gonna do?

The very serious legal aspect to this topic cannot be underestimated, or waived just to please the Public. The Public will not decide this case, a judge will.
The laws are there not only to control behaviour but also to protect us. And whether your name is Bryant or Picton, everyone deserves their day in court.

I noticed, for example, Jeffrey, that you very rashly made the statement:

“he killed a cyclist on a Toronto street”

When you state that a person who has yet to be tried in a court of law is a killer, you are crossing a line that is not particularly ethical, and I think you know that.
It is also actionable. You can be taken to court yourself for publishing an as yet unfounded statement like that.
You need to remember that you wish to have the same rights extended to others that you demand for yourself.

And yes, Jeff, if only there were a law against wasting “the public’s time”.
How old are you, Jeff?
I ask because that remark of yours is a further indication of an opinion coming from someone with not a lot of experience with the world around you.
If only Stephen Harper, the Republicans in the U.S., and the programmers at the CBC would stop wasting MY time!

Money, money, money.
You and I may not have the financial resources of a Michael Bryant or a Brian Mulroney, but they’re free to do whatever they want with it.
Buy a boat, get a tummy tuck, whatever.
And we may never find ourselves using a PR firm to enhance our reputations, but we might hire someone to spruce up and re-write our resumes.

I’ll agree with you that the trivial use of social media is worth noting, but I think there are bigger fish to go after, and I’ll go after one after a short break …

I have to say this all looks very suspicious for Bryant – if he really was innocent he shouldn’t have anything to hide and be upfront about what really happened. Instead the first thing he did was call a PR firm and make sure he had a fresh suit for his next press conference. He never explained what happened, other than assert that he is innocent. It looks very fishy – as though he is waiting for all the witnesses/video evidence to come out first so he can make up a story that will fit in and not contradict the evidence.

It’s also very clear that the mainstream media is doing everything it can to help Bryant. I am amazed at how much coverage is given to Darcy Sheppard’s “troubled” past, or about how Bryant’s career is in jeapardy… basically they cover everything except the facts. Very little attention is given to why Bryant was allowed to walk away without bail, or why he wasn’t tested for alcohol consumption even though he just killed someone with his car.

I’m greatful there are other sources out there such as independent blogs and YouTube. If you watch the videos and witness testimony you can see Bryant deliberately drove into Darcy’s bike, and that he was intentionally trying to injure/kill Darcy by knocking him off his car while driving well over the speed limit.

here’s an article about what officers of the court can say online

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13lawyers.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=legal%20battle&st=cse

Allan – AGAIN, I don’t care what officers of the court can say online. My concern is as a communications professional.

Let’s boil it down: If you can’t use the tool, don’t create the tool.

There are other things that the Bryant legal AND/OR PR team could have done in order to sway public opinion. Instead, it appears they chose to act in a way which is grossly ineffective. That is all.

You are welcome to continue commenting ad nauseum about the rules for court officers, but I suggest you go find a legal proceedings blog to do so.