Today’s media environment demands that information be delivered in a direct, fast and transparent manner. I learned this lesson the hard way following the press briefing incident in October 2007 at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in which we were accused of conducting a “fake” news conference. At the time I was FEMA’s director of external affairs.

The myriad accounts of my role and responsibility were simply inaccurate. Many in the media assumed they had the facts and fired away. It wasn’t just the speed of information that drove this story, it was that the story was far more entertaining, more likely to draw readers and attention if the event was characterized as a “fake” news conference with the obvious intent to manipulate and deceive rather than a “botched” press conference where errors in timing and judgment were compounded.

The fact is that I did not authorize or condone the briefing as it occurred. A subsequent inquiry affirmed this, according to sources familiar with the report, but by then it was too late. The rush to judgment, combined with how the event was characterized and my action to assume responsibility for the mistakes of staff, sealed my fate, caused me to lose a coveted position and offered an easy solution for all.

I paid an extraordinarily high price for doing the right thing. My more than 23 years of public service to America ended abruptly. However, I do not believe I was the only one who lost in this experience. America lost a public servant who invested an entire career building communication programs that were responsive and transparent, and based on trust and integrity.

FEMA undermined the gains it had sought to demonstrate during the California wildfire response and lost what little trust and credibility the agency had worked so hard to restore since Hurricane Katrina. And, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought to ensure that it was perceived as moving swiftly to take appropriate action and hold individuals accountable.

Because so little attention was given to the outcome of the subsequent inquiry by the media, I can only conclude that the truth was not sexy enough—it didn’t bleed. But a twisted version of the truth met the criteria for “news”—better described as “infotainment.”

Painful lessons

There are three cultural and organizational lessons that emerged from this terribly painful and personal experience.

First, speed to report information appears to be more important than accuracy. The business pressures to acquire audience share and ratings undermine one of the traditional views of journalism, which is to make the significant relevant.

Second, organizations that rely on the mass media to get information to those who matter most do so at their own risk. The traditional paradigm that governs many organizational communication programs to leverage the power of the mass media is terribly out of step with the technology and environment in which they operate. Today, people want to learn directly from organizations about issues that are relevant to them.

Third, individuals generally tend to follow their predispositions without seeking information contrary to these positions. For example, there are those who believe that this administration routinely seeks to obfuscate truth in support of its own agenda. I believe this contributed to the rapid determination that FEMA sought to “pull a fast one” on the media last October. The reality is that well-intended staff sought to get information out quickly about government action but failed to follow procedures.

Unfortunately, bad information and lies repeated often enough seem to become the truth. And, our natural predispositions to associate with like-minded perspectives only serve to reinforce what we may already believe rather than the truth.

Rebuilding trust

I believe these issues are important and relevant because they speak directly to the issue of trust. In a mass media environment that appears to value entertainment more than substance, how do organizations communicate effectively? In short, how do organizations build and maintain trust with those who matter most if the traditional paradigm of delivering critical and urgent information through the mass media no longer works?

Part of the solution is in leveraging technology to get information out directly, quickly and transparently. Another part of the solution is in developing the correct organizational policies that reinforce a culture of communication and transparency. Planning is also a key component of the solution. Failure to regularly exercise plans—including communication plans—will undermine an otherwise effective organizational response.

Organizations must not only perform well today, they must also communicate well. Organizations that develop the right communication policies and procedures that are routinely exercised and reinforced in the planning process and leverage technology can build and maintain trust with those who matter most, which is critical in today’s homeland security environment.

——————— 

John “Pat” Philbin, Ph.D., APR, is senior vice president of Pier Systems Inc. This article is in response to “A Modest Proposal for DHS Public Affairs” posted on the HSToday.us website on Nov. 4, 2007.