Over the course of my career, I have seen some truly dreadful crisis PR work done and advice given. This usually derives from an ignorance of the regulatory and legal framework which governs all media publications – a working knowledge of which is essential for effective crisis PR. As I explained in my previous tip, this creates the risk of a negligence claim.

One of the most common PR crisis mistakes comes when a newspaper or broadcaster offers the right to reply. A statement is then prepared with the hope it will be included in the story – and generally it will, albeit in the least conspicuous place possible. This too creates a negligence risk.

Although no two crisis PR situations are the same, they can, broadly speaking, be divided into two:

• The first: A major problem has arisen (an IT crash, a data leak, a systems failure, etc), where the company has obviously been guilty of some failure or other, but has done nothing which is manifestly reprehensible. In that case its communications must be apologetic, empathetic and brief. There is no obligation on the part of a publisher/broadcaster to carry such statements, and if they are not kept as brief as possible, it will be cut. If you fit the key messages into the fewest possible words and try to avoid it sounding like a routine PR statement, which would be useless, then it will help mitigate the damage.

• The second: A newspaper/broadcaster is intending to make allegations of wrongdoing against a company and/or its senior personnel – asserting there has been some form of ethical or moral failure. In those circumstances, the first thing to establish is whether those allegations, in whole or part, hold any truth. If they are true, then the statement must again be brief. It must accept responsibility, be contrite rather than defensive, and resolve not to repeat the mistakes. It should be worded with the assistance of a lawyer to ensure that it will not be used in any subsequent litigation, which is unlikely. If they are false, then merely offering a statement of denial – however credible – to the publisher/broadcaster is effectively playing into its hands. This is because, unlike most PR professionals, all professional journalists are trained to have at least a working knowledge of the regulations and laws which apply to their work.

There is a plethora of legal resources for journalists, but I have never understood why crisis PR professionals are not trained in the same way. I have authored books/held seminars to that effect.

Journalists and their editorial lawyers know that to minimise the risk of any regulatory and/or legal challenge concerning the publication, the right to reply device must be deployed, and as long as the gist of the response is included in the damaging article/broadcast then you have minimised any such risk. Practically speaking, the effect of merely offering a denial statement is to signal your consent to the false allegations at issue being published so long as they are followed by a brief statement of denial, which is effectively useless to the client.

Where the publication of false allegations is threatened, the publisher/broadcaster should be confronted with this fact, told that their publication would contravene the applicable regulations/laws, and that they will be held to account accordingly.