We Conclude Our Focus On Jordan Meier's 2011 Four Stages Of

We Conclude Our Focus On Jordan Meiers 2011 Four Stages Of Media Re

We conclude our focus on Jordan-Meier’s (2011) four stages of media reporting with Unit III. As has been discussed, how journalists pursue their profession and how the media reports events is foundational for crisis communicators as they plan, arrange, and conduct crisis communications. In Unit II, we explored the first two of Jordan-Meier’s four stages: (1) fact-finding and (2) unfolding drama. Here in Unit III, we will look at the last two stages: (3) blame game and (4) resolution. Her media reporting model captures natural tendencies of human societies as they pertain to researching events, public reporting, fact determination, and reflection on what the gathered facts mean.

Blame Game In labeling Stage 3 as the blame game, Jordan-Meier (2011) got right down to what most people observe as a crisis unfolds: People blame others for culpability or naivety. Whether a family matter, an altercation between a cashier and a customer, or an issue between businesses or public and governmental institutions, blame can fix responsibility and help frustrations evolve into eventual justice by publicly showing who should have known better. UNIT III STUDY GUIDE Media Reporting During a Crisis II: Stages III and IV MSL 5200, Crisis Communication Management 2 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title As Jordan-Meier (2011) explained, people have different opinions about the crisis. Having learned the facts, they want to know whose fault it is that the crisis occurred.

Feelings about an issue inevitably have been generated and established before a crisis. When a crisis commences, we can assume related feelings about its issues already exist; “I told you so†syndromes are rampant amid these media reporting stages (Jordan-Meier, 2012). Also, of course, the facts of the crisis can be broadcast as far as technology can carry them (i.e., globally). These, then, are the ingredients of the blame game. The Stage 1 facts of the crisis are out and still being confirmed, and the victims who the crisis affected and actors who caused the crisis are being determined in Stage 2.

The blame game captures the inevitable human trend and tendency of determining, at least provisionally, who started or contributed to the problem. The media plays a major role in establishing blame. This includes generally neutral journalists but also editorial columnists and talk show stars. Then, there is the common word-of-mouth exchanged between friends, family, and colleagues. Congress certainly plays the blame game as well.

Congressional hearings are a legislative function of this branch of government. They serve to determine facts, but they are also a part of the checks and balances system within the U.S. government. Playing the blame game is not a trivial action, though mostly the ramifications are greater in a national forum than in local gathering places. Jordan-Meier’s model focuses on media reporting. Conventional media, however, is rapidly being joined by self-publishing media (e.g., blogs, social media).

Even the limited character count on Twitter does not faze many imaginative subscribers or authors. The fact that news is being communicated by conventional media but also by anyone with computer access and a voiced opinion is significant in Stage 3. Conventional media journalists, even if obliged to follow their publisher’s political leanings, generally take pride in the professional integrity inherent in their calling. This is not always true of a private citizen posting whatever he or she feels like posting! Private citizens with media access can form opinions as they please, including casting blame without fair or just analysis as long as it follows their world views.

Thus, the blame game can pick up steam even when the conventional media is temporarily not so engaged; the media can even be surprised by such a rapid turn of events. This is, in part, what is meant by the term “the Internet exploded.†This dynamic of accusations coming from so many unexpected directions compels crisis communicators to move quickly and effectively in delivering their critical messages. U.S. Ambassador to Germany Philip D. Murphy is interviewed by NDR TV at the Consulate Booth in Wolfsburg, Germany, on July 6, 2011. (Herold, 2011) Pictured is an individual being interviewed by the media about a crisis. (Usbotschaftberlin, 2014) MSL 5200, Crisis Communication Management 3 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title An organization’s leaders and spokespeople must act quickly during a crisis that is moving through these stages.

Jordan-Meier (2012) gives the example of Domino’s. In 2009, the company had an issue when two employees posted a YouTube video of themselves behaving poorly while in work uniforms. Domino’s leaders initially disregarded the principle of speed and did not offer a public response for 48 hours. To the public, such lack of communications indicated that either the organization was silently assenting to the conduct or that its leaders did not know what to do. Either way, it was bad for the business.

If Domino’s had immediately addressed the issue by assuring the public of its dedication to quality customer service and by providing some insight as to how the issue would be resolved, Domino’s could have shut down the crisis sooner. Resolution Jordan-Meier’s last stage is resolution. If nothing else does, time will move a crisis along in the minds of the public. At some point, all crises that are not reenergized will end. Even a crisis that leaves an organization diminished through accurate and strong doses of blame will end as a social dynamic.

The public may get bored with the rehashed details, the crisis may be remediated, or it may simply cease to worsen. Such a crisis is resolved but only if it is not re-triggered by a repeat of events. Sociologists may note that resolution fulfills a human need. Eventually, people tire of a depressing topic covered in exhausting detail, especially if the topic generated hard feelings, harm to others, or damage to materials and reputations. Sometimes, a civic leader can guide citizens to a resolution (e.g., writing a thank-you note to those who helped in a crisis and sending it to be published in the “Letters to the Editor†column within the community newspaper).

In fact, you may see astute politicians quickly recognizing a crisis unfolding in Stages 1 and 2 as facts are being sifted, which will be just enough time for them to skillfully steer their constituents through Stages 3 and 4, minimizing damage to themselves and their priorities. In such a case, getting a message out that establishes a Stage 4 resolution may be a very strategic move. There is an important professional and vocational aspect to Stage 4 resolution. Individuals and organizations alike can learn from incidents if they are willing and agile enough to do so. Documented ideas of what happened, the proximate or long-term causes, the impact on people and materials, and the lessons learned can be collected, examined, and presented in public or closed-door forums, or both.

Of course, an organization’s leaders must show sufficient humility to meet the challenge of recognizing and internalizing lessons learned. Pride, ego, fragile self-image, inability to gain and maintain a sense of situational awareness, or even a measure of laziness may block any meaningful processing of what needs to change for next time, but for a while, the opportunity is there to do so in a professional manner. Timeliness counts; a collection of lessons learned 5 years after the crisis will not be recognized as meaningful to anyone unless all of the pertinent details of the crisis were locked in litigation the entire time. Resolution may slip from an organization’s grasp if the organization does not act and communicate quickly enough for the public’s satisfaction.

At some auspicious point in the crisis, government leaders might step in and bring resolution by imposing new restrictions to prevent or mitigate a repeat of the crisis. This unfortunate turn of events means that the business or lower-level government entity could have controlled some or all of the crisis closeout but did not. If a higher government authority intervenes, it is usually acting amid widespread dissatisfaction that the organization cannot or will not act to prevent such crises. A Wrap-Up of Jordan-Meier’s Stages For the rest of the course, we will explore best practices of crisis communication in greater detail. After seeing Jordan-Meier’s four stages of media reporting, along with the suggestions from authors in our readings to date, we can start to frame a few good ideas.

Jordan-Meier’s (2011) point is that seeing crises through the framework of media reporting stages helps organizational leaders do message planning (i.e., what to say and when) and action planning (i.e., what to do and when). Leaders must quickly take responsibility on behalf of the organization. To do so requires much of a leader and goes against the instinct for self-preservation; however, the idea is not to save one’s self, at least not unconditionally. If an organizational act or omission was a proximate cause of the crisis, and its leaders or spokespeople do not own up to this right away, the media and bulk of public opinion will make the call, and not in flattering terms or tone, as the crisis reporting moves through Stages 2 and 3.

An organization’s early and frank communication can help to dispel rumors. An organization does not necessarily need to initiate communications by explaining every aspect of the crisis event; rather, communicating the preferred message about the most important aspects of the crisis is the primary goal. In the early stages (Stage 1, in particular), the designated spokesperson may be chosen to communicate publicly instead of the senior leader/CEO/director. The leader and supporting staff may be conferring to reach the best initial decisions. The “best†spokesperson may be an ordinary employee; in American culture, “Joe Everyman/Jane Everywoman†is held with a high level of candor and trust (Jordan-Meier, 2012).

On the other hand, this is not the time for senior leadership to stay hidden from public view while holding endless meetings that consume hours in the wake of the crisis. If this occurs, the media, stakeholders, and public will draw their own conclusions about the organization and its leaders. If the organization has no plan for crises and crisis communications, or the plan does not cover the particular crisis being dealt with, everyone will be able to recognize this based on the organization’s response time. In any case, it is time to begin collecting lessons learned and to continue to do so as the crisis proceeds (Barton, 1991). The spokespeople and their leaders should use contemporary ways to get communications out, and this includes social media.

They should be speaking at press conferences, e-mailing or personally speaking to organizational members and close stakeholders (e.g., clients, suppliers), updating their web and social media must demonstrate that it is in touch with today’s society. It is a frequent (and often justified) charge that an organization’s leaders, usually being senior in age and experience to their employees and much of the public, have grown out of touch. Organizations must frame the crisis in their own terms. This defends against malicious actors who always want to frame the crisis in a way that is hostile to the organization. Planning and communicating the truth as seen from the organization’s point of view also reprioritizes what should be of most concern.

A promising approach is to start by noting the organizational or stakeholder “heroes†who prevented the crisis from escalating (JordanMeier, 2012). The legal advisor on the organization’s staff, often a practicing lawyer, is a valuable member of the staff; however, legal advice should not be the greatest influence in crafting plans and making decisions when responding to a crisis. Legal advice does become extremely important if looming litigation stemming from the crisis is such a large threat that the organization’s future is at stake; however, at other times, leaders should resist a legal advisor who says that no one should communicate during a crisis. Someone must do something in regard to communications; otherwise, the public, assisted by the media, will draw their own unfavorable conclusions about the organization in the wake of the crisis.

The lessons gathered for collective learning should reflect professionalism. What worked well? Was it luck, or did the organization do these things effectively? What did not work out? What can the organization plan, resource, or execute better?

Organizational members hold their job security and reputations in high regard. Accordingly, the gathering and presentation of lessons learned should be impartial and should not punish candor. To this end, the lessons learned platform should avoid “throwing someone under the bus†unless culpability is so glaringly obvious that it was a part of the public’s perception of the crisis. In such a case, job termination or less severe disciplinary measures concerning an unfortunate organizational member may have already occurred. For the bulk of the members and stakeholders, the lessons learned from the crisis should be an opportunity for professional growth, which can strengthen the organization for future challenges.

The lessons may even be suitable for public release. Regardless, it is definitely time to revise the crisis plan with the lessons learned! During this time, leaders should show optimism; everyone wants to be believe the best days are ahead for the organization. References Barton, L. (1991). When managers find themselves on the defensive.

References

• Barton, L. (1991). When managers find themselves on the defensive. Business Forum, 16(1), 8-13.
• Herold, H. (2011). Ambassador Murphy is interviewed by NDR TV [Photograph].
• Jordan-Meier, J. (2011). Crisis management. Leadership Excellence Essentials, 28(8).
• Jordan-Meier, J. (2012). You cannot control a crisis: You can control your response. Communication World, 29(6), 20–23.
• U.S. Department of State. (2014). Spokesperson Psaki responds to #askJen questions [Photograph].
• U.S. Department of State. (2015). Deputy Secretary Blinken addresses reporters at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center [Photograph].
• Herold, H. (2011). Ambassador Murphy is interviewed by NDR TV [Photograph].
• Usbotschaftberlin. (2014). IMG_9024 [Photograph].
• Jordan-Meier, J. (2012). You cannot control a crisis: You can control your response. Communication World, 29(6), 20–23.