February 14, 2011, 8:00 a.m.; February 23, 2011, 7:30 a.m.
There Are Three Steps
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
[Update, Feb. 23: An important addition to this Feb. 14 blog commentary regarding the University's overlooking the lessons in the "crisis communications playbook" when handling the hospitalization of 13 Hawkeye football players on Jan. 25, headlines all the local papers this morning [Feb. 23].
I closed the Feb. 14 commentary with:
It's UI President Sally Mason's call as to how, when, and with whom to draw on what I call the "crisis communications playbook." But Heldt reports that "When asked if athletics crisis communications might be moved to the office of the UI's vice president for strategic communications, Tysen Kendig, Mason said it doesn't matter who reports to whom."
That's one call for which I'd recommend a challenge and instant replay.
It now turns out I was right to call for an instant replay. What the replay shows is that "who reports to whom" was a major part of the problem.
The Des Moines Register got hold of the emails that were flying around the campus in late January -- they are "public records" under Iowa law -- and all the papers are reporting on what those emails reveal about the Iowa's "chaos in crisis communications."
See, Tom Witosky, "Documents cite U of I concerns on what to release about hospitalized athletes," Des Moines Register, February 23, 2011 (also in Iowa City Press Citizen's HawkCentral); Erin Jordan, "UI releases emails showing response to hospitalization of athletes," The Gazette, February 23, 2011 ("Even the University of Iowa’s top communication official disagreed with the Athletics Department’s handling of the football player hospitalizations in January, according to e-mail communications released Tuesday by the UI."); Jordan Garretson, "UI rethinks PR approach after football hospitalizations," The Daily Iowan, February 23, 2011.]
# # #
Last Wednesday [Feb. 9] The Daily Iowan's Alison Sullivan reported the University of Iowa's Athletic Director, Gary Barta's analysis of the University's recent bad national press over the hospitalization of 13 football players -- the "negative attention directed at the University of Iowa football program."
"He [said] the national media and the public reacted too quickly to the recent hospitalization of 13 football players. The instant negative publicity resulted from what he described as the media’s mentality of getting information fast in the Internet era, even if 'facts be damned.'” Alison Sullivan, "Barta: Football media attention has been difficult," The Daily Iowan, February 9, 2011.
The paper maintains an online edition where readers can post comments. I contributed the following:
"The national media and the public reacted too quickly to the recent hospitalization." The other possibility? Maybe the AD [Athletic Director Gary Barta] and [football] Coach [Kirk Ferentz] reacted too slowly.
There's a public relations playbook for "crisis management" that's seldom read and less often followed -- whether any president's White House, corporate CEO, or athletic team -- and was ignored in this crisis as well.
As Ferentz acknowledged: "Ferentz . . . acknowledged he erred by leaving campus to recruit while the players were hospitalized." HawkCentral, Feb. 2. [Andy Hamilton, "Ferentz Says He Erred, but Defends Program," HawkCentral, February 2, 2011.]
Had he briefly returned, expressed the concern, announced an investigation, and made the statements he made later, that "negative attention directed at the University of Iowa football program" would not have been eliminated, but it sure would have been significantly balanced and softened.
Admittedly, some journalists jumped without facts. I've deliberately not blogged about the hospitalization because I don't have the facts either.
But focusing on the media's faults may not be the most constructive or efficient way to identify, and respond to, "the problem."
This morning [Feb. 14], The Gazette's Diane Heldt reports the University may now be digging out and dusting off that "crisis management" playbook. Diane Heldt, "UI considers changes to crisis communication; experts offer tips," The Gazette, February 14, 2011, p. A1: "University of Iowa officials are discussing ways to improve how they communicate in a crisis, after the university’s response to the recent hospitalization of football players garnered bad press across the nation."
My son, Gregory, calms his computer customers' frayed nerves by beginning virtually every instruction for them with the line, "There are three steps" -- which he then proceeds to reveal.
So it is with Crisis Communications 101. Heldt reports, "Experts in image consulting and communications say immediacy, transparency, honesty and empathy are key when an organization is hit with a crisis and the public and media are demanding information. 'When you let there be a lag time, that can be perceived as lack of concern or avoidance,' said Kate Loor, vice president with Frank Magid Associates, speaking about crisis communication in general."
OK, four steps. But it's pretty much what I was saying in my little comment on the DI's story. It's not rocket science. It's kind of common sense.
According to Heldt, Barta is still focused on medical details instead of PR basics. "UI Athletics Director Gary Barta said when news first broke of the 13 hospitalized football players, UI officials didn’t have a lot of information and their No. 1 concern was for the players’ safety. 'We felt that was all the information we had at the time,' Barta said of the initial UI response. 'In hindsight, maybe I would have done things differently, but we went with what we knew at the time.'”
So, you don't know the medical details. OK. The "four steps" -- immediacy, transparency, honesty and empathy -- still leave you with a lot of things you can say and do (rather than saying nothing while playing golf in Florida).
Heldt reminds readers that Coach Ferentz acknowledged on Feb. 2 that "it was 'bad judgment on my part' to not return immediately to Iowa City to be with his hospitalized players or take part in the news conference" (which neither he nor Barta attended). (Coach Ferentz was tending to one of his top priority responsibilities: recruiting players for next season's team, with national "signing day" looming before him in 10 days.) That's the confession of someone who "gets it." That's class. We all make mistakes; we don't all acknowledge and take personal responsibility for them, without excuses and blaming others. (He's displayed equal character on occasion when blaming himself, rather than his players, for the loss of a game.)
It's UI President Sally Mason's call as to how, when, and with whom to draw on what I call the "crisis communications playbook." But Heldt reports that "When asked if athletics crisis communications might be moved to the office of the UI's vice president for strategic communications, Tysen Kendig, Mason said it doesn't matter who reports to whom."
That's one call for which I'd recommend a challenge and instant replay.
# # #
Addendum, For the Record.
I subsequently elaborated on my first comment on the DI's page.
Following my original comment, an "Ed S" said, "Nick 52 is right on the money with his comments. If the AD does not understand the problem he has created than who in the world does? . . .."
This prompted an "FlSven" to come to the AD's defense. In the spirit of the FCC's repealed "Fairness Doctrine," I reproduce his comment in its entirety:
All way off base, this truely is the result of the "instant news, screw the facts, just tell me something, anything" culture and mentality we've slipped into.
Can you imagine the 'outrage' by these analyzing experts if quick, inaccurate statements were made by Coack Ferentz .. omg!!
All these University individuals are very honorable Gentlemen and this has been validated by the new recruits and their families who didn't waver in their committments and the existing players who are all looking forward to more HAWKEYE football.
I'd suggest getting over yourselves and recognizing the hype and exaggeration that the media and some fans of other teams have blown up over this accidental event that was handled professionaly by the University.
Please let go of the jealousy that surrounds the monies made by successful individuals discussed, it's not very attractive and is often the vehicle of the wannabies and unsuccessful.
In response, I commented:
Seldom would I respond to a comment here. Such 'tis-'tain't exchanges too often escalate into dialogues neither constructive nor civil. And I'm not even sure FISven had my earlier comment in mind. But to remove any possible ambiguity as to what I was trying to say:
- I also noted "some journalists jumped without facts" and that "I've deliberately not blogged about the hospitalization." Of course the media bears much of the blame for how the media handled the hospitalization.
- No one's suggesting that Ferentz should have, or would have, made "quick, inaccurate statements." What I suggested was that had he "expressed the concern, announced an investigation, and made the statements he made later" the "outrage" FISven (and I) wish to avoid "would have been significantly balanced and softened." His choices were not limited to (1) delaying saying anything, and (2) making "quick, inaccurate statements."
- I absolutely agree with FISven that "all these University individuals are very honorable Gentlemen." I've described Coach Ferentz as perhaps the best coach in the country -- pro and intercollegiate -- who runs a class program.
- However, both Coach Ferentz and I seem to disagree with FISven's characterization that the public relations and media relations aspects of this event were "handled professionally by the University." He's publicly acknowledged as much -- being the classy guy that he is. I agree; and because of my affection for the University of Iowa, offered the suggestion that it might be institutionally advantageous for the University -- and its major programs in the spotlight, UIHC and athletics -- to anticipate, and give a little more attention to, what I called the "public relations playbook for 'crisis management.'"
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
September 29, 2008, 9:45 a.m.
"Censorship" and Anonymous Electronic Speech
The Daily Iowan has, without explanation, removed comments, and shut down the ability of readers to add more, to a couple of stories about the UI's President Sally Mason. Until the paper explains what happened and why it is premature to assume it was either a "computer error" or an outrageous bit of state censorship.
[See Amanda McClure, "No Raise for Mason," The Daily Iowan, September 26, 2008, and Amanda McClure, "Mason Apologizes to Regents," The Daily Iowan, September 26, 2008, and the six comments complaining about those deletions posted between September 26 11:34 a.m. and September 28 7:41 a.m. to Lauren Sieben, "Regent: No 2nd Thoughts," The Daily Iowan, September 26, 2008.]
But that's not the only bit of blogging news.
Some of the best literary as well as policy writing on the Press-Citizen's editorial pages occurs when the paper's own editorial page editor, Jeff Charis-Carlson, writes and publishes a piece that is entirely his own.
But it's a significant commentary about the role of blogs and other forms of electronic speech these days that someone who has such exclusive access to his own editorial page in a newspaper also chooses to communicate by way of a blog.
It's especially appropriate that he would do so in this case.
He's blogging about blogging.
Specifically, he's addressing some of today's hot issues surrounding the propriety of mainstream media permitting on their online Web sites anonymous comments from readers about stories in the paper's hard-copy edition. These comments can sometimes include those that are little more than name calling and mean-spirited allegations with little or no factual basis, coming from those able to hide their lack of decency and manners behind their anonymity.
Charis-Carlson sides with the practice of anonymous speech utilized by three of our nation's founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Anonymous Online Comments: Good, Bad or Just Ugly?", September 24, 2008, 4:24 p.m. He begins:
I was asked to take part in an Iowa City Public Library panel discussion on Online News and Message Boards. I had prepared five-minutes worth of introductory remarks, but the organizers launched right into questions. So, I thought I'd share these remarks with the people who could appreciate them most -- anyone reading and commenting on www.press-citizen.com:
"Introduction for the Intellectual Freedom Festival: Online News and Message Boards."
Last week, I attended the annual convention of the National Conference of Editorial Writers — this year in Little Rock, Ark.
As you can imagine, our focus was primarily on trying to justify our own profession at a time when anyone with an Internet connection can set himself or herself up as a purveyor of opinion.
Not only did we discuss the issues arising from our own anonymity — writing the nameless consensus opinions of our editorial boards — but we had many discussions on the degree to which allowing anonymous online responses to news and opinion articles either:
a) Represents a revolution in citizen journalism (which is good),
b) Provides a crass way to drive up online traffic statistics at the expense of reasoned, vetted, well-edited news and opinion (which is bad), or
c) Does a lot of both (which is just ugly).
The three witnesses called by Charis-Carlson are, as you'll recall the authors of the famous and influential "Federalist Papers," writings encouraging the ratification of the Constitution while impressing the authors' interpretations of it upon the public and judges who followed. They chose to write anonymously, using the name, "Publius." (Originally published as newspaper articles, October 1787-August 1788, they were ultimately published in book form as The Federalist (J. and A. McLean, 1788).)
The courts have tended to look favorably upon anonymous speech as well -- and to some extent for the same reasons Charis-Carlson identifies: "at times, cyber-anonymity is the only way to allow contrary opinions to be raised without retaliation against those who dare speak out against majority opinion. At times it is the means by which a voice crying in the wilderness can find an audience." (See, e.g., "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960).)
I guess, while I would not differ with the basic doctrine approving anonymous speech (with such a distinguished historical foundation), I do think it is not compromised by modifying it in the specific context of readers' comments on a newspaper-owned Web site.
As it was put in Justice Jackson's separate opinion in Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 97 (1949): "The moving picture screen, the radio, the newspaper, the handbill, the sound truck and the street corner orator have differing natures, values, abuses and dangers. Each, in my view, is a law unto itself."
The Court has made clear that the only people who have meaningful First Amendment rights in our monopoly-media-dominated society are those who own them. And those are only rights as against government action. Editors and journalists can be fired by owners; they certainly don't have any First Amendment rights as against the owners. Even though a paper has a local monopoly, and has posted rates for the sale of advertising, it can refuse to publish an ad just because it doesn't like the content. It can attack someone in its pages and refuse to sell or give them the space to reply. (See, e.g., Miami Herald v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), overturning as unconstitutional a Florida statute providing for precisely that right.) Clearly, the public doesn't have any First Amendment right as against the owners. (All are actions that would in most contexts be violations of the First Amendment if done by governments -- a consideration that may impact on the propriety of The Daily Iowan's recent actions.)
As the Court argued in upholding the Fairness Doctrine (now repealed) in Red Lion v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the Congress/FCC could have decided to require broadcast licensees to share frequencies (that is, one licensee might broadcast Sunday through Wednesday, another Thursday through Saturday -- both in the same town and on the same frequency). Therefore the much lesser Fairness Doctrine requirement was clearly permissible (i.e., the sole licensee had to (a) deal with local controversial issues of his/her choice, and (b) present a range of views, also of their choice, in doing so).
Similarly, if a privately owned newspaper can refuse to carry any letters to the editor, and refuse to permit any comments from readers about its stories on its Web page, it would seem to me perfectly permissible for it to allow only the comments of those willing to identify themselves.
Most papers will go to some considerable lengths before publishing a letter to the editor to confirm that the letter submitted to the paper has been written and sent by the person indicated as the author. Of course, once published the author's name is known. And at least two of the standards the paper will use in deciding which letters to publish, presumably, are (1) the extent to which the letter makes a worthwhile substantive contribution to the community dialog, and (2) the civility of the language employed.
By what rationale does a paper apply such relatively rigid, responsible, professional standards to the letters to the editor in its hard copy edition, and virtually none to what amount to the "e-letters to the editor" in its online edition?
If (1) there is, in fact, a problem of outrageously offensive comments about stories being placed on newspapers' Web pages (what Charis-Carlson calls "grossly inappropriate commentary"), and if (2) there is reason to believe that requiring those placing comments to identify themselves might reduce or eliminate the problem, why would it be so wrong to require those commenting to identify themselves by their actual names?
On the other hand -- like President Truman's request for "a one-handed economist," would you really want me to be a one-handed blogger? -- the printing press has been around a lot longer than the World Wide Web. (China had movable porcelain type in 1040; Korea the first metal movable type in 1230. Johannes Gutenberg was a Johannes-come-lately, waiting around in Mainz until 1439.) The Congress and the courts have taken a somewhat lenient free market approach to the Internet's wild west excesses during its baby years. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 gives those who provide an opportunity for online comments from others something of a base on balls when it comes to what would otherwise be the provider's liability for third-party content.
Many papers and other services have at least some mechanism for readers to flag comments of others they believe to be over the top. As Charis-Carlson notes, "in the past year we’ve [the Press-Citizen] had to kick off dozens of participants for grossly inappropriate commentary."
But that sort of thing can raise other problems -- as anyone can quickly discover when their e-mail provider gets put on an industry-wide "do not receive" list, friends no longer get their emails, and there is little to nothing they can do about it. (It's kind of similar to the "Red Channels" list of tainted actors and writers during the "anti-communist" years of Senator Joseph McCarthy.)
Privately-owned papers are not restrained by the First Amendment. They can, legally, be selective about which readers' ideas will be permitted on their Web sites, and which will be removed. When the government opens up what is called a "public forum" it cannot make such content-based distinctions between who can, and cannot, use the facility. But even though not legally required to do so, the underlying principles suggest a similar standard would also make sense for privately owned newspapers. If you're going to open up your Web site to reader comments, a community dialog, doesn't it make more sense to permit all of them?
That's the way this blog of mine has been operated. The only comments I've ever removed are those that are clearly advertising for goods or services (primarily from gambling casinos; comments appended to blog entries dealing with gambling). As long as I get my say in the blog, I think readers are entitled to their say in the comments -- though I would tend to be more tolerant of comments criticizing me than comments bordering on defamation, or invasions of privacy, regarding others, were those situations to arise.
It helps, in trying to understand both the First Amendment and the utility of considering its underlying foundations' applicability to private media as well, to lay any proposal involving speech alongside the First Amendment's purposes to see how it fares.
1. "Marketplace of ideas." It is believed that "truth" is more likely to emerge from a public dialog in which all persons and ideas can be presented and weighed.
2. "Self-governing." If a self-governing people are to have a prayer at making democracy work they must at least have access to the maximum possible range of information and opinion on public matters (whether they take advantage of that access is, of course, another matter).
3. "Checking value." The press is sometimes called "the Fourth Estate" because it is both recognized in our Bill of Rights as an important component of government and one that is totally outside of government. As every school child knows, the legislative, executive and judicial branches provide a check on each other. But the media can serve as an additional "check" as well, not only on abuses by government, but abuses by other powerful institutions as well (this week think "Wall Street").
4. "Safety valve." There is a theory/assertion that by permitting the frustrated and angry an opportunity to speak we can reduce somewhat their alternative response: violent actions of one kind or another perpetrated against the community and the elements within it they perceive to be the cause of their misery.
5. "Self-actualization." Humans belong to, as a general semanticist has observed, "the only species able to talk itself into difficulties that would otherwise not exist." We are bested by the other species -- especially squirrels -- in many ways (speed and athletic prowess; sight and hearing; survival skills; the bats' radar; etc.). Our superiority is in our ability to create and use language. Speaking and writing -- and the analytical thought that, hopefully, precedes it -- contribute to our growth as individuals, our self-actualization, with regard to the only quality that sets us apart.
To the extent those "First Amendment values" resonate with you, most if not all would seem to be served by readers' comments on newspapers' Web pages.
As Charis-Carlson concludes, permitting them is: "an act of optimism as well as commercial exploitation, but we’re betting its potential benefits of increasing conversation will outweigh the current hazards of having those conversations end in a flame out."
# # #
