I was watching CNN this afternoon after gutting my pumpkin and toasting the seeds when I heard about FEMA’s response to the California wild fires. I was blown away by the PR nightmare that has ensued. I actually sat around until they ran the story again to make sure I heard things right and then hit the computer.
For those who missed this one, FEMA issued a press conference last Tuesday to update the media and public on its response to the California fires and how it has been handling the situation. The conference was called last minute and the media was apparently unable to attend, but the conference took place anyway with FEMA employees posing as inquisitive reporters while FEMA directors answered questions. The tape of the fake conference was then issued to the media.
Once word got out about the staged press conference, FEMA issued an apology, saying that in its attempt to disseminate a lot of information to answer previous media questions, it had made an error in judgment and that the employees who had participated would be disciplined. However, only the AP was invited to witness that statement. Talk about making a bad situation worse. For more details, read and watch the story yourself.
Here’s the situation in my eyes. I give FEMA a nod for good intent. It wanted to answer questions, wanted to get information out about the situation and didn’t want to hide. All good things, however, there were a number of ways it could have done this aside from issuing a last minute press conference. (i.e. set up an FAQ area on its Web site, etc.) From case studies I covered in class, it seems to me that a common mistake made during crises is rushing into disseminating information without considering key messages, who should act as spokesperson and what the appropriate forum for distributing the message might be.
In this case, a press conference might have been a good medium, but the true error was that FEMA was dishonest. I’m still not quite sure why the conference couldn’t have been postponed until more media could attend, but regardless, it should have been honest and transparent. It could have announced as a disclaimer at the beginning of the tape that media were unable to attend, however it wished to address media questions it had received up to this point and planned to reschedule a media conference at a later date. Then it could have gone ahead with its prepared answers, issued the tape to the media and had more time to plan for the next step of addressing the media in person. I believe there was more thought put into staging the conference than in researching the situation and thinking through the consequences of being dishonest. A little brainstorm of possible consequences probably would have resulted in this option, and hopefully someone would have taken a hint.
As for the response– an apology and a promise to learn from the mistake and never repeat the error– a good idea and exactly what I would have learned from my case studies professor. Although I still think I would have invited more than just one media representative.
Apologizing to one brother when I pissed them both off never did me much good.
