It hasn’t always been this way. I grew up in an era when the narrative was defined by justice and due process, and when singular truth and absolute facts mattered above all else. Today, opinion pieces seem to make far more noise online than matter-of-fact journalism. It seems as though opinions are often treated as breaking news.
As a result, I’ve observed a crossbred system in which legal justice appears to go hand-in-hand with popular (social) justice. Viral opinion pieces often push the public to the same conclusion the author arrived at. My father is a journalist, and he championed the causes of justice. When he wrote about Ford and its fated Pinto, or the pharmaceutical firm A.H. Robins and the Dalkon Shield IUD, I saw deeply investigative work exposed the way corporate greed puts money over public safety.
He didn’t do it because a group on Facebook felt cheated or wronged (providentially, there was no such thing) and he didn’t put it out in haste. Making such accusations were a big deal. The benefit of the doubt was important and in order to secure real justice, the genuine truth had to be exposed.
There are different perspectives on events, sure, but there is only one set of facts. As a crisis manager, my role is to help illuminate those facts in a way that positions my clients’ perspective as lucid and trustworthy. But in today’s environment, the rush to judgment is quick and deliberate, and I’ve noted instances in which judicial actors (such as judges and prosecutors) seem to use public sentiment to pursue justice. Judges may wantonly take a side before a case is ever heard — and in my opinion, they did it to satisfy a public or targeted need of parties or stakeholders.
I have seen a judge appear to sentence someone not based on the crime pled to or convicted of, nor what others involved in the same or similar matters were sentenced to, but based on persona and public opinions about the individual standing at the defense table.
Law can be hard to quantify. There is the Constitution, then there is the law and judicial precedent. Then there are new precedents set that can modify an understanding of the law. Still, there is the absolute of fact over fiction, and that should not be open to selective interpretation.
How does this relate back to crisis management? In an environment where facts no longer seem to matter, a crisis manager would do well to learn to navigate the minefield carefully. It takes solid relationships with, and trust of media, plus a good eye for timing and a solid grasp of the details, public atmosphere and sentiment. An honest crisis manager makes for a more reputable storyteller – one who can explain the case and the dangers to our justice system.
Then there is the need for patience: It is often imprudent to join the public deliberation or try swimming against the currents; it’s an easy way to have your voice drowned and your reputation intentionally marred as a device to delegitimize your words and work. Patience, calm persistence and fortitude are imperative. You may not win in the moment, but your opportunities will arise eventually.
That is the new normal, the new coming together of legal justice and popular justice. That is what makes being a crisis manager more difficult today.
