When faced with a crisis, especially in the political world, gut instinct can tell those in the firing line to hunker down and shut up. But in thinking about how some, high-profile public officials have handled communications in crisis (or near-crisis) scenarios over the last twelve months, there's an argument to be made that the reverse course of action is best. If you genuinely think you've got an explanation or exonerating details to offer and you're getting hammered by the media (or are about to be), consider a large-scale drive to communicate. This is one case where more can be more.
This has been well-demonstrated recently by President Obama who, following a series of heavily-covered administration appointment bungles submitted to a televised interview in which he acknowledged that he had "screwed up" -- a frank admission which many Americans may not have expected to hear from the President. Sure, you might be thinking, few people who were starting to wonder about just what kind of due diligence the transition team conducted on potential nominees will have changed their minds and thought "ah, actually, they're running things perfectly, after all." You also might be thinking that the President had no choice but to go this route. I would argue that is not so (Obama was arguably more blunt in his self-criticism than former President George W Bush ever was). But in any event, the point is that the media shifted its meme from "surprisingly incompetent" to "responsible, actually" (at least until another mini-scandal involving a Cabinet nominee and taxes began to unfold).
OK, but Obama has a sky-high approval rating, and the press has been in his pocket for some time, you might argue (depending on your individual read of reporting angles). Of course, they'd respond neutrally-to-well to him proverbially confessing his sins on camera, for all the nation to see, you might say. What about those who are less popular with the fourth estate, you might ask?
Well, with regard to online media, specifically, back in 2006 and 2007, one such character might have been Sen. John McCain. In the run-up to the 2008 Republican primary contest, McCain was a popular target among conservative bloggers because of his stances on issues ranging from immigration, to global warming, to campaign finance reform, to the use of harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists. It would have felt "safe" and "easy" to avoid interacting with online media, as such -- yet McCain went in the opposite direction, participating in frequent blogger calls, and including progressive bloggers on those calls in the run-up to the general election. When, in 2007, McCain was faced with real campaign difficulties that potentially threatened his ability to carry on, this proved a significant asset. In interacting with bloggers, McCain had a way to continue to talk about the issues, when some mainstream reporters were focused on the campaign's day-to-day status and process (a less beneficial storyline for the campaign).
Or take another McCain-focused example. In February, 2008, the New York Times -- often described as the nation's paper of record -- wrote a widely-panned story about McCain and a Washington lobbyist. Rather than avoid questions about a story he described as "disappointing," though, McCain held a press conference and took more than thirty questions from the press. The story was effectively dead after that day.
Ramping up communications and giving major-league access to media while attempting to defuse a bad storyline can, of course, have its risks. Ex-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich recently engaged in a whirlwind tour of major media outlets in an effort to demonstrate his innocence and general good character, with the result of improved treatment, from his perspective, by the media in many cases. But, there was obviously much that legal advice would dictate he avoid discussing, and one comment in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in fact led to some speculation that he might have incriminated himself on camera. That said, Blagojevich's circumstances were fairly unique in the political world. The bulk of elected officials and candidates will face highly negative, very damaging pieces that are capable of gaining traction at some point in their career. But few of them will face actual impeachment or criminal investigation.
For them, if there are important facts or perspectives to get out, being upfront and communicating a lot, not a little, can pay off, big time, and staying quiet, or saying just a little can hurt. Just ask the press pool covering then-candidate Obama whether they feel he did himself any favors with the press conference he held in San Antonio in March 2008, at which the New York Daily News wrote that he "scurried away," after answering (in Obama's own words) "like, eight questions."
Communicate More, Not Less
