Management of a crisis (and less serious situations)

The Essentials

If a reporter is in touch about a story of national significance (e.g. an alleged serious misdemeanour involving a minister or church officer), it is advisable that the recipient:

• Is friendly and respectful but indicates it is not convenient to take the call right then. This allows a little time to consider what to say.
• Never says nothing or says "No comment" in relation to a controversial story. This is NOT a safe and neutral action. It means the Church has rejected its right of reply and has lost its opportunity to provide a statement balancing whatever damaging claim has been made. The correct response to a reporter is: "Enquiries are being handled by the Church's Communications Team. Please contact them."
• Is not drawn into a detailed conversation but requests name, number and a brief indication of what information the reporter seeks.
• Rings the Church's Communications Office: 0131 240 2278. Emergency out of hours number: 07854 783 539.

The Communications Officer can then contact the Head of Communications, the Principal Clerk and other key figures as required. The Communications team should aim to monitor social media through electronic alerts and also more traditional media channels to assess how a story is being reported.

Damage Limitation in a Crisis

Action by Church Officials

The standard crisis management advice from communications professionals is to act quickly:

Issue at least a holding statement

A common error is to wait too many hours before releasing even a holding statement. While it is obviously wise not to attempt a comprehensive statement until the picture is fairly clear, saying nothing is high risk. It allows public suspicion to grow and allows speculation and criticism to spread unimpeded. Twitter, Facebook and other social media distribute information very quickly. Journalists pick up many stories and the nuance of stories from Twitter.

Emerging stories are in newspapers and broadcast websites and bulletins very quickly. It has never been more true that: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."(Twain).

If a misleading, damaging report about the Church appears mid-morning, it can be viewed as established fact well before lunchtime. It is imperative to get a rebuttal out fast before this happens.

Apologise

When an organisation is unequivocally in the wrong it is usually wise to issue an apology. Failure to apologise can inflict reputational damage which lasts for years, affecting for example its status, its relations with external partners and its ability to fundraise and recruit. In years gone by many organisations had limited awareness of the consequences of reputational damage. They focused almost entirely on perceived loss of face and the link between an apology and potential litigation or raised insurance premiums as a consequence of potential compensation claims.

Restricting the flow of information to the media and avoiding an apology is advisable on some occasions. It could be the Church is not the main organisation at fault and too free an apology could result in reputation damage and questionable compensation claims.

If a further damaging angle emerges and there is a reasonable chance the media will eventually discover it, it is usually best to proactively let this be known on the day so that it is mopped up into the main bad news that day. The aim is to ensure the organisation is not still in the news one or more days later – and possibly accused of a cover-up.

Indicate action

Indicate the Church's planned course of action e.g. an internal investigation, an inquiry by an independent agency, calling in the police, a planned overhaul of procedures.

Who does the interviews?

• Please note the protocol of who speaks as laid down in Communications policies.
• It is essential the interviewee is an authoritative, reasonably confident figure in broadcast interviews. Sometimes it is worth considering setting aside protocol and putting forward a church person on the scene who is very well informed on the situation.
• Usually it is important the interviewee is in a town where there are TV crews. There are few crews and they rarely have time to make a round trip to somewhere far afield.
• A Communications Officer should aim to use their phone to film a short clip for use on the Church's website and social media.

What should be in a Press Statement?

In a major incident it is advisable to put out holding statements on social media and on the Church website e.g. "We are aware that x or y appears to have happened and are urgently investigating. We hope to release further information later this afternoon". Keep rephrasing and refreshing this statement even if there is nothing substantially new to say. It is important that reporters and the wider public feel the Church is aware of their concerns, is very concerned itself and is trying to keep in contact and communicate appropriately.

Leave wriggle room in case a situation is different or more nuanced than it originally appears. It could emerge for example that the Church of Scotland is not the organisation at fault.

If a strong attack is made against an organisation it is usually best to reply in a restrained way. A heated response may make the Church appear less dignified. Additionally reporters can then legitimately describe the issue as a row. Stories which lend themselves to a first sentence such as: "A row has broken out between the Kirk and …" are more likely to appear on page 3 than page 33 of a newspaper. Sometimes attacks are so wild and inappropriate, it is best to decline to make a statement on it or to produce an extremely low-key reply of one or two sentences.

Busy reporters often take the first usable paragraph in a statement, particularly if a response is not sent out until mid to late afternoon. For that reason it is essential to make the first point the strongest point.

It is important to think not just in terms of defence. Sometimes it is possible to share with reporters a new development e.g. announcing an inquiry into the incident. This strong new angle to an issue often puts an organisation in the first paragraph of a story taking charge of it rather than on the back foot talking only about what has gone wrong.

A swift statement

The team will suggest a tight deadline for agreeing a holding statement at least. A potential holding statement could be along these lines: "We are aware of reports indicating x or y may have happened. We are investigating and will release more information once the situation is clearer."

Obviously more time should be taken over more definitive statements.

Language

It is advisable to avoid jargon and committee language. It distances readers and may even alienate them. News teams deal with an immense amount of material in any given day. Concise statements are far more likely to be read and used in their entirety.

The Truth, the Whole Truth

In order to attempt damage limitation the Communications team needs the whole truth. Sometimes people downplay a situation to make colleagues feel better or because they do not realise the potential way this story will play in the media. Perhaps subliminally they wish to protect themselves from potential accusations in any post mortem. However it is vitally important to share all information with the Comms team. A crisis may never erupt in the public domain if the team is forewarned and able to take action. If it does erupt the ability of the Communications team to minimise the impact depends on accurate information.

The worst possible outcome is that a misinformed Communications team gives out false or misjudged information which compounds a crisis, causing damage from which an organisation takes a long time to recover. It is often a perceived cover-up which is the most damaging aspect of a story.

Offering misinformation may inflict long term damage on an organisation's reputation. It also means the Communications team loses its position of trust, its ability to kill off future genuinely untrue stories by simply telling reporters there is no substance in them.

Assertions have a certain impact. It is often wise to seek out statistics and facts which highlight mitigating circumstances.

Is an Interview always best?

Radio and TV interviews offer an opportunity to humanise and strengthen our response – but an "absence of interview" can sometimes help to distance an organisation from an event.

It is important to think hard about accepting an invitation. Other organisations may more obviously be in the frame and have turned down media invitations. The Church could become the focus in a situation in which arguably it is peripheral.

Interview Don'ts

It is advisable to avoid joking or exaggerating to dodge an unhelpful question. Humour is not always evident when words are written up in an article.