Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1308154
and especially when more detailed information is obtained, further messages can be provided, whether it is about the circumstances of the incident or the perpetrators, if the man-hunt continues. Another important thing - especially in this case – is to determine who will be responsible for communication. Of course, the first thought is a press spokesman, but of what institution? Police? Prosecutor's Office? City Hall responsible for crisis management? There may be many potentially interested institutions and bodies, but one leading institution should be chosen whenever possible. In this case, it should be Police, not only for formal reasons, but also because an average citizen - and this is the addressee of the message - intuitively expects that this is an event that should be dealt with by Police. Media communication must meet one basic condition. It must be transparent and efficient. The rule is that each institution should have one most important principle in its internal procedures in this regard. To paraphrase a well-known military person - this is the spokesman and no other employee or officer has any right to speak out without the spokesman's knowledge and approval. This one person and support team are the only point of contact for the media. This provides two important benefits. First, it allows to quickly resist information that is not always true, and whose authors (or promoters) often refer to undefined „persons wishing to remain anonymous". Such claims are easily disproved if they are countered by a quick, transparent answer. Transparency does not mean revealing everything - on the contrary, a clear distinction between open and classified information (especially taking into account what is already known from publicly available sources) helps in cooperation with the media. Journalists then know that certain topics will not be addressed, and others will. Non-transparent communication policy gives the impression that the institution is not working properly or is perceived as an invitation for journalists to obtain information through their own sources. They will then impose their narrative. This is very important as the next step is to impose and maintain your own narrative. The very sentence itself may be associated with manipulation or something objectionable, but it is about something more mundane. Unfortunately, you need to be aware of how the information flow functions today. By sticking to an exemplary attack - the same event can be described in terms of „an attack took place, but authorities reacted quickly, many people were saved" or „authorities did not detect the threat, did not prevent the attack, and innocent people died as a result". One cannot succumb to the temptation to spread propaganda instead of information or, worse, to engage in personal clashes with journalists. The principle of impartiality must be strictly adhered to - especially when it comes to political matters. Suspicion of being biased, or strongly biased, would lose your credibility. And again – during a crisis it means giving up the initiative. Such a scenario in which others will impose a narrative and provide truthful or false information is extremely unfavorable during a crisis. Control over information is as important as the physical activities of rescue services, police or army. It allows to avoid panic and chaos, which in turn allows to reduce the number of people injured. www.fragoutmag.com