Monday, September 11, 2017

4 lessons from EPA’s criticized crisis response

The Environmental Protection Agency is fighting back—but many called it the wrong move.

After The Associated Press report questioned why EPA workers had yet to access damaged toxic sites in Houston, the agency attacked the reporter, claiming AP was guilty of “yellow journalism.”

In the Sept. 3 report, AP reported that 13 “Superfund” sites—designated by the EPA as some of America’s most toxic places—were under water in Houston flooding. The article claimed that reporters had been able to access the sites by boat and on foot, even though the EPA was still offsite.

AP’s Jason Dearen and Michael Biesecker wrote:

AP journalists used a boat to document the condition of one flooded Houston-area Superfund site, but accessed others with a vehicle or on foot. The EPA did not respond to questions about why its personnel had not yet been able to do so.

“Teams are in place to investigate possible damage to these sites as soon flood waters recede, and personnel are able to safely access the sites,” the EPA statement said.

Initially, the EPA tweeted that Superfund sites would be accessed one they became accessible:

After AP’s report, the EPA released a separate release, stating that all 41 Superfund sites had been “assessed” through aerial imaging. Its statement didn’t stop there, however:

The agency wrote:

Yesterday, the Associated Press’ Michael Biesecker wrote an incredibly misleading story about toxic land sites that are under water.

Despite reporting from the comfort of Washington, Biesecker had the audacity to imply that agencies aren’t being responsive to the devastating effects of Hurricane Harvey. Not only is this inaccurate, but it creates panic and politicizes the hard work of first responders who are actually in the affected area.

The personal attack on Biesecker confounded some, while others compared the criticism to the modus operandi of President Donald Trump’s administration.

The agency’s aggressive move backfired, and the story continued to gain traction as journalists rallied to defend one of their own.

Here are four alternative tactics the EPA could have tried—and lessons PR pros should use for future crises:

1. Focus on the facts, not the writer.

By attacking the Biasecki’s credibility, the EPA surrendered its own position as an impartial government agency. Its statement singled out the reporter by name, which some watchers found both cringeworthy and newsworthy:

The ad hominem style might excite some readers, but it keeps the story in the news. Remember, the more you react in an emotional or controversial manner, the more fodder you give members of the news media—along with social media users.

2. Offer an alternative version of events.

Media outlets were quick to notice that though the EPA lambasted AP’s report, it seemed to confirm the basic facts of the story.

Politico wrote:

The statement did not point to any specific factual inaccuracies in Saturday’s story, besides accusing Biesecker of leaving out information about the EPA’s other efforts to monitor the toxic land sites, and the AP has not offered any corrections on the piece.

Twitter users agreed:

EPA’s response did include its claim that it surveyed all Superfund sites with aerial imaging, but took no effort to explain why its approach was preferable to having boots on the ground. Don’t let the opportunity to control your organization’s narrative pass by. Instead, act quickly to control the situation (including your side of the story).

3. Stay accountable by avoiding unsigned statements.

Some called the EPA’s response insulting because it lacked proper attribution.

Most of the release was unsigned, but a quote at the end is attributed to EPA’s associate administrator, Liz Bowman:

Once again, in an attempt to mislead Americans, the Associated Press is cherry-picking facts, as EPA is monitoring Superfund sites around Houston and we have a team of experts on the ground working with our state and local counterparts responding to Hurricane Harvey. Anything to the contrary is yellow journalism.
[FREE DOWNLOAD: Discover how health care organizations can move forward in an evolving PR world.]

PR pros, take note: A lack of attribution might suggest that no one at your organization believes in the statement enough to publicly stand by it.

4. Calm fears with expert interviews.

The EPA has scientists and specialists who could speak about what they are doing in response to the accident. Instead, news outlets were left to find experts.

Buzzfeed reported:

No Superfund site has ever seen this kind of flooding before, so experts don't know what kind of damage to expect.

"We don’t have any precedent to figuring out what the cumulative effect is going to be on someone’s health," [Jennifer Horney, an associate professor of epidemiology at Texas A&M University] said. "They're not going to get cancer tomorrow — they may get asthma in three months."

When trying to put out a PR fire, give journalists as much information as possible that can show your side of the story while providing additional facts and views for their articles. This way, you can potentially change the narrative.

Communicators, what tactics would you have suggested to stop EPA’s bad news cycle?

(Image via)



from PR Daily News Feed http://ift.tt/2xstKyW
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)