Regardless of a person’s sociopolitical positions, restraint is expected when it comes to communicating responsibly about violence. Disturbing social media posts circulated however after the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump’s life.
Different people boldly expressed their disappointment that the shooter did not succeed at murdering a political candidate while additionally ignoring that an attendee was murdered and two other people were shot and badly injured.
The people posting didn’t appear to care about how their public communication might make them look to those who disagreed with their viewpoint. They also didn’t appear to care about how their public communication might affect their organizations where they work.
Cyndee Harrison, principal at Synaptic, a comprehensive marketing and public relations firm, contacted Communications Intelligence to point this out.
In doing so, she directed C.I. to an article she wrote, How Brands Should Respond to Employees’ Social Media Statements During Sensitive Incidents.
That piece touches on 1) Creating a Social Media Policy for Turbulent Times 2) Considerations to Avoid Communications Crises for Your Brand and 3) How to Address Backlash if Employees Post Inappropriate Content.
In the situation where some people online, post-presidential candidate shooting, vented their clear disappointment that a shooter did not end up killing a recent, former U.S. president, and did not consider the risks and consequences to their organizations and careers, is puzzling.
“The messages that you’re referring to were not only shocking in nature but in volume,” Harrison says. “I personally saw dozens of them, so it’s easy to imagine there were hundreds, if not thousands more.
“Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the American public has had to witness an assassination attempt on a president. But it is a new experience in the age of social media and it feels like a watershed moment.
“To me, the question is twofold: First, how could so many seemingly average citizens have such collective poor judgment? And second, what consequences come next and from where?”
There may be a logical explanation for why people don’t think before communicating ugliness online, why their impulses aren’t controlled and why they act out in ways that seem surreal by observers.
“While we can’t know what goes through another person’s mind, there are a few things that we can assume are at play here,” Harrison says.
“First, people who are active on social media may become so accustomed to sharing their day-to-day experiences that to them, it feels natural to share their initial response to such a major news event, even if those initial thoughts were shocking and unexpected,” she says. “Next, public figures, including politicians, can become so much larger than life that individuals may disconnect them from our human experience.”
She provides an example to illustrate.
“In one noteworthy example, a staffer for a US Representative from Mississippi posted a comment on Facebook on Saturday, shortly after the shooting at the Trump rally in Pennsylvania, that read ‘I don’t condone violence but please get you some shooting lessons so you don’t miss next time, oooops that wasn’t me talking.’
“Her post set off a firestorm, prompting her to say ‘I acted in the heat of the moment. I wish I had not posted that. I don’t want anybody to kill Trump. I don’t care for him, and he attacks my (former) boss, but I don’t want anyone to kill him or anybody else. I am really sorry.’”
Harrison notices that this behavior happens beyond political professions, as she saw people who are teachers, counselors and executives. Communication Intelligence saw business owners and people in the medical profession giving into communication temptation and misbehavior.
“Many of them lost their jobs in a very public manner,” Harrison says, “which raises an entirely new set of questions for the companies involved, who now face an unexpected media crisis brought about by an employee’s social media post.
“Business owners and leaders across the country began Monday with no idea that their brands would be thrust into the public spotlight. For some, the fallout will be ruinous.”
She provides an example.
“Consider the experience of a video production company in Little Rock, Arkansas whose employee posted an incensed response to the assassination attempt, prompting others to track down his place of employment and tag them all over social media,” Harrison says.
“In response, this company issued what they called a ‘public statement‘ announcing that the employee had been terminated. This, of course, could be problematic in the future, whether due to a defamation suit from the employee or blowback from customers and vendors.”
Harrison was asked about her recommendation for a social media policy for organizations, as in how helpful can they be reliable when people are in the midst of an intense, emotional storm of negative emotion and social media is right there at their fingertips to publicly publish foolish communication.
“Planning and protocols cannot prevent communication crises altogether, but they can serve two important functions — reducing the likelihood of this sort of behavior from an employee and mitigating the negative impact, if it should happen,” she states.
“For businesses and organizations who found themselves at the center of this particular controversy, it’s a painful and expensive lesson and my guess is that they’ll have strong communications plans in place moving forward.
“This should serve as a wake-up call to any business of any size that doesn’t have a solid crisis plan in place. It’s impossible to predict where all of this will end, but it’s unlikely that our public discourse will cool off any time soon, particularly as the political climate will only get hotter from this point.”
There are of course leaders who will feel and believe that such an unwanted trouble could never happen to them personally or the organizations that they lead.
That’s an error of belief and a serious business risk.
“Here’s the bottom line for any business owner or leader who thinks their company is immune to the consequences of a social media blunder,” Harrison says, adding, “let this week be a stark warning: You are only one impulsive post away from a crisis that could shake the very foundation of your enterprise.”
She elaborates on her advice.
“These aren’t isolated incidents,” Harrison says. “From teachers to executives, from small businesses to major corporations, the fallout from careless online comments is both real and devastating.”
She lists 6 points in her advisory mentioned near the top of this article. Harrison talks about how can her recommended policy can be made most effective.
“Policies are only as effective as their implementation and integration into the day-to-day culture of an organization, so it’s important that communications training be a regular part of employment, no matter how small the business,” she recommends.
“Some of the individuals who posted these regrettable thoughts believed they were protected under the First Amendment, unaware of the implications of their actions in the eyes of the law, their employers, and frankly, their lives on and off of social media.”
Her bottom line on this question:
“If employees better understand the parameters, they’ll have an opportunity to stay within them,” Harrison says.
Not all organizations, especially smaller ones, think about crisis protection or can afford a large agency to cover them. Harrison says that fear isn’t always accurate.
“No brand should have to defend their reputations alone. We built our PR Shield product because we’ve seen an increasing number of small businesses, most of whom don’t have access to a PR firm with expertise in crisis communications, facing media crises that were once unimaginable,” she says.
“Like data breaches, this is a challenge of business leadership that is no longer limited to the C-suite. Your reputation is invaluable. Shield it with crisis communication.”
Thank you for reading this issue of Communication Intelligence. Please consider subscribing, free or paid, to support the work of this publication.
