crisis communications – Paynter Communications

Making the Case for Transparency

“Rather than protecting students, the University appears to be protecting an employee charged with sexual misconduct. Not surprisingly, that does not sit well with students who filed complaints.”

This headline recently caught my eye: “University will sue its own student newspaper for reporting on sexual assault case.” Really? I was intrigued because I’ve helped quite a few schools share news about a staff member accused of sexual misconduct. These are difficult cases, due in part to the tricky balance between revealing enough information to protect students, while respecting the rights of employees accused of behavior that could destroy their lives.

It turns out the University of Kentucky (UK) is suing the independent student newspaper, the Kentucky Kernel, to avoid releasing documents related to an associate professor, James Harwood, who resigned after an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and assault. The Kernel requested both the resignation agreement and the school’s investigative documents. When UK declined to provide the records, the newspaper appealed to the Kentucky Attorney General’s office, citing the Commonwealth’s open records law. According to news reports, the Attorney General ordered UK to release the documents with any identifying information redacted. UK still refused, citing privacy concerns, and is appealing the Attorney General’s decision.

Meanwhile, the student newspaper obtained the documents through other sources and published articles detailing charges filed against Harwood by the Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity: two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual harassment. Harwood resigned before a disciplinary hearing was held.

I don’t pretend to know whether the University will win its appeal but it has already lost in the Court of Public Opinion by picking a fight with its own student journalists and by not presenting a reasonable justification for withholding the documents. In his statement, University President Eli Capilouto says that, “in a handful of very specific cases, we are faced with the decision of whether transparency is more important than the need to protect the privacy and dignity of individual members of our community. It is not.”

He goes on to justify the decision by citing irrelevant examples – patient information, which is legally protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and student information, which is legally protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). He also cites the importance of protecting the privacy of victims of violence, but in this case the Attorney General allowed for redacting identifying information.

Rather than protecting students, the University appears to be protecting an employee charged with sexual misconduct. Not surprisingly, that does not sit well with students who filed complaints. They want the allegations made public so Harwood can’t simply continue his behavior at another university. That’s the dilemma for any organization faced with this choice. Protecting someone who is charged with misconduct gives the appearance of guilt by association. In the Court of Public Opinion, only those who have something to hide will cover up for an abuser.

UK is home to the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center, whose mission is “to promote understanding of the First Amendment among citizens of Kentucky, to advocate for First Amendment rights in the Commonwealth and nationally, and to produce internationally recognized scholarship concerning the First Amendment and its related freedoms.” Perhaps the University’s president should pay them a visit.

Meanwhile, the Kentucky Kernel is a finalist for the Pacemaker Award, presented each year for outstanding collegiate journalism by the Associated Collegiate Press. My journalism degree is from the University of Missouri but, this year, I hope UK student journalists take home the prize.

Identifying Villains in the Panama Papers Line-Up

A lot has been and will be written about the 11 million documents leaked from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, as journalists all over the world comb through a massive amount of information. So far, news accounts have focused on high-profile leaders from Russia, China, Argentina, Pakistan, Ukraine, Syria and Saudi Arabia, among others. The prime minister of Iceland resigned after news broke that his wife had millions of dollars in offshore accounts.

The law firm, Mossack Fonseca, posted a statement and FAQ about the situation on its website, addressing what it calls the media’s “inaccurate view of the services we provide.” The statements clarify exactly how the law firm advises its clients and how its activities are regulated. They explain the difference between “tax avoidance” and “tax evasion” and the firm’s responsibility to report unlawful activity to the authorities.

“For 40 years, Mossack Fonseca has operated beyond reproach in our home country and other jurisdictions where we have operations,” the statement says.

But, from my perspective, an even bigger issue for the law firm’s long-term survival is how this information was leaked in the first place. A data breach has to be the biggest reputational risk for anyone responsible for safeguarding sensitive client information. No one has yet explained how a German newspaper got its hands on the documents, except that the original source was Mossack Fonseca. Yet, the law firm’s statement contains no apology or expression of concern for the clients whose confidential information is now public.

Relationships with attorneys and other advisors are based on trust. This leak shatters that bond of trust. How will the firm survive such an egregious breach? Other clients whose information has not yet been reported must be looking over their shoulders, wondering if – when? – reporters will be calling, ready to plaster their confidential information across the internet. How could the attorneys at Mossack Fonseca possibly reassure them? If I’m a client, I’m quickly looking for a new attorney.

So who’s the villain – the clients who followed their attorneys’ advice or the law firm? If I was giving crisis communications advice to the individuals or companies whose information is now public, I’d recommend they point the finger back at the law firm. Let Mossack Fonseca explain both how they advised their clients and how their clients’ confidential information was leaked to the media. Sure, they should deny wrongdoing if, in fact, they have done nothing wrong. But since the media’s always looking for a villain, I’d make sure they know exactly where to look.

Lessons from Hollywood – and The Boston Globe

I’m not going to predict which of the eight movies nominated for Best Picture will win the Oscar; in fact, I haven’t seen all of them yet. But I can enthusiastically recommend “Spotlight” for any executive or organization worried about media scrutiny.

“Spotlight” tells the compelling story of the Boston Globe’s investigative team that revealed a systematic cover-up of sex abuse by Catholic priests. The Globe’s reporting initially focused on allegations against John Geoghan, a defrocked priest accused of molesting more than 80 boys. (Geoghan has since died in prison.) As the story unfolds, we see the investigation spread far beyond a single priest to a scandal engulfing Cardinal Bernard Law, who eventually resigned from the archdiocese and was reassigned to the Vatican. Just before the “Spotlight” credits roll, we watch as multiple screens list countless other cities where major abuse scandals were also uncovered.

I’ve seen a lot of journalism movies over the years but I can’t recall another as realistic as “Spotlight” since “All the President’s Men,” which 40 years ago told the story of how two reporters from the Washington Post uncovered the Watergate scandal that eventually led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation.

Fortunately, most organizations will never face the level of media scrutiny highlighted in these two films. Unfortunately, journalism as a profession has changed significantly in the short time since 2002, when the Globe won the Pulitzer Prize for the story behind this movie. Local newspapers no longer have the resources to support full-time investigative teams that spend months – or even years – producing these kinds of stories.

But many insights still apply. For example:

Reporters do their research and build their stories before approaching the targeted organization for comment. If you are the target, it’s very difficult to reshape the story at that point. That’s why it’s so important, when something bad happens, to be proactive and tell your stakeholders directly before they learn about it in the media. If you wait, the story will be framed for you and you’ll be the Villain.
Whatever good you do in the community is not a sufficient defense against bad behavior. In “Spotlight,” Cardinal Law tries to convince the Globe’s editor that the newspaper should not embarrass the Church. “I find that the city flourishes when its great institutions work together,” he says. The editor responds that a good newspaper has to be independent to perform its function. And every good journalist believes that. The Globe was not dissuaded in the least by Law’s objections.

To me, one of the most interesting dynamics in the film was the role of the editor, new to Boston and viewing the potential story differently than anyone with a history at the paper. He asks why there hasn’t been more coverage of the Geoghan case when it appears the priest abused 80 children and a lawyer claims to have proof that Cardinal Law knew about it. Other staffers are stunned that the new editor wants to take on the Catholic Church.

That’s perhaps the most valuable lesson of the movie. Sometimes we are so close to a situation that it takes someone from the outside to see it clearly. I have often found this to be true for those in leadership roles. An outside perspective can inform difficult decisions and prevent missteps, especially in communications. Those can be difficult conversations, but leaders benefit from “truth tellers” who are not afraid to offer another point of view.

As a Catholic, I found “Spotlight” very troubling – even though I already knew the story and have helped numerous organizations dealing with abuse cases. As a former journalist, I found “Spotlight” inspiring because of the revelations that came from good, solid reporting. And as a crisis communications consultant, I found “Spotlight” affirming.

More Lessons from the Volkswagen Cheating Scandal

Volkswagen is finally reaching out to its customers with a “goodwill package” for those who own cars equipped with the software designed to cheat emissions tests. The package, outlined in full-page newspaper ads, includes a $500 gift card, another $500 card that can be redeemed at Volkswagen dealerships, and three years’ worth of free roadside assistance. They still haven’t said how they’ll fix the emissions problem so they’re hoping this offer will buy time with customers stuck driving cars with significantly lower resale value that continue to violate emissions standards.

Many VW customers and dealers must be wondering why it took the company two months simply to apologize and ask for patience. Meanwhile, the news continues to get worse, involving many more vehicles in both the United States and Europe.

The latest revelations about problems in Europe came from a whistleblower – a company engineer who, according to news reports, alleged that employees manipulated tests for carbon dioxide emissions and fuel economy on diesel- and gasoline-fueled cars. The New York Times reported that internal investigations have been hampered by employees’ “ingrained fear of delivering bad news to superiors.”

In response, Volkswagen is offering an amnesty program for workers covered by collective bargaining agreements. (The offer does not include top management.) Of course, the company can’t protect employees from possible criminal charges, but they are promising that employees who come forward with information by the end of November will not be fired or face damage claims.

While this is unusual, it may be the only way Volkswagen can overcome a culture of secrecy and obtain the information it needs. We’ve seen this in other crisis situations, where employees knew of significant problems but did not come forward out of fear they would lose their jobs or face other repercussions. This meant top management was blind-sided by problems it might have been able to address.

Every senior executive should be concerned about a company culture that discourages employees at all levels from reporting problems. Frankly, the more layers of management a company has, the less likely it is that concerns will make their way to the top.

That’s why it’s so important for company leaders to regularly leave the executive suite and talk with hourly employees. That can take the form of periodic plant visits, town hall meetings, or random invitations for groups of employees to have coffee with the CEO. It’s also important to clearly articulate a process for employees to report concerns to risk management, compliance, human resources, or whatever department is appropriate within your organization. Anonymous reporting should always be an option, whether that’s by using old-fashioned suggestion boxes, a hotline or online channels.

Then, management must make a commitment to determine whether the concerns raised have any legitimacy. If employees don’t believe their concerns are taken seriously, they will stop voicing them.

You can’t fix a problem unless you’re aware of it. Now is a good time to remember Ben Franklin’s admonition, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Crisis communications: Still waiting to hear from Mizzou

I’m a proud Mizzou alumna but I am not so proud of my alma mater this week. The fall semester at the University of Missouri has been a tumultuous one, with protests and rallies over everything from health care for graduate students to incidents of racism on campus. As a result, the university president and chancellor of the flagship campus in Columbia both resigned yesterday. It became almost impossible for the two men to remain in leadership after a graduate student began a hunger strike and football players said they would boycott games until the president resigned. Those were just the highlights that grabbed national headlines. Many – faculty, students and alumni – publicly expressed their deep concern about the situation on campus, especially for students of color, and the lack of communication from the administration.

One academic department summed up the feelings of many in a statement of support for Jonathan Butler, the graduate student who began the hunger strike: “The ELPA faculty would like to share our disappointment and grief related to a long history of racism, prejudice, and discrimination at MU and the inadequate response of campus leadership to an ongoing culture that permits these incidents to thrive…”

As both an alum and a crisis communications expert, I’ve followed the coverage with interest. I watched the YouTube video of the president remaining in his car while student protestors blocked its path during the homecoming parade. I read articles in the student newspaper (www.themaneater.com) and posts from students that fellow alumni shared on social media. Where was the communication from the university? Even after the president and chancellor resigned, it took much too long for the university to post a release on its website. As of this writing, the university has yet to post updates on Facebook or Twitter, or send anything to my email inbox, where I frequently receive fundraising requests. In fact, I’ve received two emails within the past week – one from the School of Journalism, the other from the Alumni Association. Neither mentioned the incidents I’ve been reading about in The New York Times.

By not communicating directly with its most critical stakeholders, the university missed an important opportunity to solidify those relationships. Perhaps they hoped we wouldn’t hear about the controversy. That’s very naïve in these days of social media and online access to information. Unfortunately, without any communication from the university, we’re left to draw our own conclusions based on media coverage, which was alarming. Keep in mind that Mizzou has a renowned journalism program so there is no shortage of ambitious student reporters on campus, posting information that is easily accessible to alumni, donors, prospective students and their families.

It’s a huge mistake in a crisis to remain silent and allow key stakeholders to hear bad news only from the media. The good news is that, with new leadership, the university has an opportunity to take meaningful steps to change the culture on campus. Let’s hope they also improve communications – not just with those on campus but with all of us who care about Mizzou.

Amazon vs. The New York Times, Rounds Two, Three and Four

First, the New York Times published an article exposing a brutal workplace culture at Amazon. Then, Amazon’s Senior Vice President Jay Carney pushed back with a blog post on Medium.com, accusing the Times of sloppy journalism. Another round ensued. Times’ Editor-in-chief Dean Baquet defended the reporting in a lengthy blog post, also on Medium.com, and Carney responded again.

First, the New York Times published an article exposing a brutal workplace culture at Amazon. Then, Amazon’s Senior Vice President Jay Carney pushed back with a blog post on Medium.com, accusing the Times of sloppy journalism. Another round ensued. Times’ Editor-in-chief Dean Baquet defended the reporting in a lengthy blog post, also on Medium.com, and Carney responded again.

I’m not a fan of Amazon’s response for a number of reasons – primarily, that Carney renewed interest in an article published more than two months ago. Carney also revealed what most companies would consider private personnel information about former employees quoted in the article. For example, he argued that a primary source in the story is not credible because “an investigation revealed he had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately.”

When something goes wrong – especially if the media exposes an employee or former employee’s misconduct – organizations may be tempted to reveal damaging information about that individual. Transparency is usually a good policy, but once that bridge is crossed with the media, an organization can never again insist that type of information is protected. In fact, in Amazon’s case, some have suggested Carney and company released this information to intimidate other employees – which, of course, reinforces the original narrative of a bullying culture depicted by the Times.

In spite of concerns about what Carney wrote, it’s a smart strategy to counter the Times on a public forum. We always advise clients to find ways to “go around the media” in a crisis and speak directly to critical stakeholders whether through emails and letters or social media platforms, including blog posts. It’s a good way to protect your reputation and effectively tell your organization’s side of the story without the media filter.

A Crisis of Deception at Volkswagen

Volkswagen is struggling to respond after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accused the company of installing “defeat device” software on its diesel-powered vehicles to cheat emissions tests. Essentially, EPA says the cars were programmed to turn on emissions equipment during tests, then turn the equipment back off when the testing was complete. As a result, although the cars performed better on the road, they produced as much as 40 times the allowed amount of pollutants. Latest reports say 11 million diesel cars worldwide are equipped with the software used to cheat on U.S. emissions tests.

Make no mistake, this is a self-inflicted crisis. Someone within Volkswagen decided to cheat so they could sell more cars. We don’t know yet who authorized this or even who knew about it. Before resigning, CEO Martin Winterkorn said they will get to the bottom of this and “rebuild trust,” but how reassuring is that coming from a CEO whose role in the scandal is clouded with suspicion?

Let’s face it, the company was caught red-handed violating its brand promise. Many consumers drive small cars like VWs because they want to minimize the environmental impact. Now, consumers feel doubly deceived. They worry about the environmental damage they’ve caused and about the resale value of their cars. Their anger is all over social media platforms.

It will take a while to comprehend the full impact of this crisis but it’s already being compared to the BP oil spill. The lawsuits started almost immediately, with a Seattle firm filing for class-action status within hours of EPA’s announcement. The stock price fell precipitously and the CEO resigned.

Winterkorn apologized for breaking “the trust of our customers and the public.” He unfortunately said they will “reverse the damage this has caused,” but of course they can’t reverse the environmental damage. Michael Horn, chief executive of the Volkswagen Group of America, was more direct. “Our company was dishonest, with the EPA and the California Air Resources board, and with all of you and in my German words, we have totally screwed up.” But apologies are not enough.

A good reputation is built by first doing the right thing. Too many crises can be traced to people and companies claiming to be something they’re not. When the truth comes out, their apologies fall on deaf ears because they have lost credibility.

Volkswagen can’t recover from this self-inflicted damage by saying the right thing. They have to actually do the right thing.

Privacy or Transparency?

We preach transparency to our clients (“Tell the truth. Tell it first. Tell it all.”) – not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it works to help protect your reputation in a crisis. But in some situations, you have to be very careful about what you say, especially when issues of privacy are involved.

Certainly, you must protect privacy in some situations. It’s a violation of HIPAA laws for healthcare providers to release private health information without patients’ permission, and it’s a violation of FERPA for educational institutions to release private information about their students without their permission.

But what about your employees? Companies often say that personnel information is confidential, but that’s a matter of policy, not necessarily of law. One of the trickiest situations arises when an employee is accused of criminal behavior. For example, we have worked with numerous schools and social service agencies when an employee is accused of sexual misconduct with a minor. Our clients invariably struggle with the question of whether to release the name of the employee versus protecting his/her privacy.

We believe it’s important to protect privacy and that everyone deserves fair treatment in the criminal justice system. The problem is that you may be very concerned about the employee’s behavior even if authorities don’t have enough evidence to pursue a criminal case. Or the statute of limitations may have expired. You may decide to terminate the employee and find yourself criticized for suddenly firing a long-time employee without explanation. Should you be transparent and tell the truth? If you don’t, what if the truth comes out?

Every case is different but, in general, it’s important to take the side of the victims. Think about what will happen if you don’t reveal an accused employee’s name – at least internally. Are your other employees at risk? And if you fire the employee, are you just passing the problem along to his/her next employer, potentially placing others at risk?

If the answer is yes, then difficult as it may be, transparency is the right approach.

Eight Lessons from the Top Media Crises of the Year

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared in March 2014, while flying from Malaysia to China, with 12 Malaysian crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations aboard.Lessons learned: Tell the truth and tell what you know when you know it. Communications were fraught with confusion and contradictions. The government didn’t release data and searchers were in the wrong location for days. In any crisis, but especially in matters of life and death, it’s important to provide accurate information so that you are a trusted, credible source.

Texas Presbyterian Hospital diagnosed the first U.S. case of Ebola after Thomas Duncan showed up in the emergency department. Duncan is at first misdiagnosed and sent home, then admitted two days later. Two nurses are later diagnosed with Ebola.Lessons learned: When lives are at stake, you must communicate as quickly and as transparently as possible, and provide clear guidance on what to do. And, if something goes wrong, you must apologize and reassure your stakeholders that you are taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again. It took much too long (11 days) for a hospital spokesperson to apologize. Let’s hope the hospital can recover its reputation just as the two nurses recovered from Ebola.

Target’s data breach occurred during the 2013 holiday shopping season – affecting 40 million customers – and the aftermath continues. Target apparently did not take action when it received alerts from its security system before the data was stolen. Both the chief information officer and CEO later resigned.Lessons learned: Tell it first. No one wants to share bad news, but Target didn’t tell its customers until after a blogger revealed the breach weeks later. Had Target informed its customers, as Home Depot did under similar circumstances, they might have preserved customer loyalty. Home Depot actually had a larger breach but communicated much more effectively, focusing on the “fix” and steps it was taking to protect its customers.

Ed FitzGerald tried to portray himself as a “victim” when news reports reveal the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio was in a car with another woman in the middle of the night and, worse yet, drove without a valid driver’s license for decades.Lessons learned: FitzGerald should have accepted responsibility and apologized. Instead, he sent an email saying his family was focused on his son’s health issues, not on “gutter politics.” (A diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma had previously been “off limits” during the campaign.) FitzGerald’s efforts to portray himself as a “victim” made a bad situation even worse. Using a child’s illness to distract from your own wrongdoing is offensive to anyone smart enough to see through the tactic.

The NFL’s botched handling of domestic violence cases, especially that of Ravens running back Ray Rice. To recap, after TMZ released video of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious fiancé (now his wife) out of an elevator, Rice was suspended for two games. At a news conference, his wife apologized for her part – and the Ravens tweeted HER apology! Eventually, we saw the videotape of Rice punching his wife inside the elevator and the NFL suspended Rice indefinitely – a decision that is now on appeal.Lessons learned: Never blame the victim. In this case, the only reason for the NFL to discipline Rice before reviewing the videotape from inside the elevator was to keep a talented player on the field. They showed more concern for winning a football game than they showed for a victim of domestic violence – forgetting, along the way, their female fan base and everyone else who reacts with horror to a 200-pound athlete assaulting a female.

Colleges and universities struggle to address sexual violence on campus in response to numerous media reports and the Department of Education’s investigations for possible Title IX violations. Big-name schools from throughout the country – most recently the University of Virginia – have been spotlighted in news reports and most college administrations have struggled to respond.Lessons learned: First, do the right thing; then you will have a good story to tell. Historically, crimes of sexual violence have been veiled in secrecy. Victims are finally speaking out publicly – and that’s a good thing. Bringing these crimes out of the shadows will encourage other victims to come forward and result in more criminal prosecutions. Colleges and universities must do a better job of dealing with these cases and communicating transparently, rather than counting on victims to remain quiet.

Ferguson, Missouri, has been the site of protests since a police officer fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown on August 9. It’s hard to find another case where so much was mishandled – from leaving Brown’s body in the street for several hours, to police showing up at peaceful protests in riot gear, to arresting journalists who were there to report about the unrest. And for some mysterious reason, the prosecutor announced the grand jury’s decision not to indict at 9 p.m., leading to another night of intense rioting, looting, burning and mayhem.Lessons learned: So many lessons to be learned from this case. Certainly, do the right thing. But it’s also important to admit mistakes quickly and apologize. And then say what you will do to correct your mistakes. It took six weeks for Police Chief Thomas Jackson to apologize, and it was at best an awkward apology. Visuals matter, especially in these days of social media. Photos of police blocking the entrance to the Justice Center say far more about access to justice than all the statements from elected officials. I don’t pretend to know why Michael Brown was shot, but a display of compassion and concern might have reduced the anger.

It took GM more than a decade to correct a faulty ignition switch traced to at least 30 deaths and 31 serious injuries. A jostling of or too much weight on the faulty switch caused the ignition to slip from “on” to “accessory” so that air bags and electric steering were deactivated. At last count, more than 30 million cars have been recalled because, apparently, no one within the organization took the problem seriously enough to do something about it.Lessons learned: By all counts, GM’s new CEO Mary Barra has done a good job of communicating. Just as the crisis communications rule book dictates, she has admitted mistakes, apologized and said what she will do to make sure it never happens again. But this is not just about crisis communications; it’s also about changing the culture within GM so that whistleblowers are not ignored. Employees must feel comfortable coming forward when there’s a problem. Barra says she wants GM to be “the most valued automotive company” and the “safest in the industry.” She has a lot of work to do to make that happen.

A Sense of Mistrust in Ferguson

By Barbara Paynter, APR

September 1, 2014

As the Missouri National Guard withdraws from Ferguson, Mo., the thought of quiet in the streets must be welcome news to residents after nearly two weeks of protests and violence following the fatal shooting of an 18-year-old by a police officer. Based on media reports, blogs and social media posts, it will be difficult for community leaders to rebuild trust after nightly stand-offs between protesters and law enforcement. Will residents trust the outcome of the investigation into the shooting? Will the officer be prosecuted? What will happen if he’s cleared?

As crisis communications experts, we are not qualified to analyze how law enforcement should have responded on the ground. But there is no question they could have handled communications much better.

Attorney General Eric Holder referred to a “sense of mistrust” in Ferguson. In our experience, trust is earned by first doing the right thing, and then communicating effectively about what you’re doing. That has not happened in Ferguson. Three serious missteps come to mind:

Transparency is the best way to maintain credibility in a crisis: Tell what you know when you know it. For several days after Michael Brown was shot, the police department released very little information. They refused to name the officer out of concern for his safety and they wouldn’t reveal how many times Brown was shot. Lack of information fueled more anger in the community.
Six days after the shooting, we finally learned – not from the police, but from a former medical examiner hired by the family – that Brown was shot at least six times. The news contradicted an earlier statement by St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar that Brown was struck by gunfire “more than just a couple (of times) but I don’t think it was many more than that.” We always advise clients not to minimize events or speculate. If Belmar knew how many gunshot wounds the victim suffered, why not release the information rather than sound dismissive? And if he didn’t know, why did he speculate?
We’ve heard it many times: Actions speak louder than words. Photos from earlier this week showed officers lined up in front of the Justice Center in St. Louis, surrounded by police tape keeping everyone else out. What message does that send about access to justice? If your words and actions aren’t consistent, no one will believe what you say.

These are just a few of the many crisis communications lessons we can learn from Ferguson.