Calculated Risks: How I Navigated a High-Stakes Media Interview
How do you navigate a situation where every choice seems fraught with risk? This question became all too real for me when an investigative reporter reached out, aiming to kick off sweeps season with a story that could have put the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District in a challenging position. The stakes were further elevated by ongoing litigation with another party, which significantly limited what I could say on the record.
The Dilemma: Statement or Interview?
The first decision I had to make was whether to offer a written statement or agree to an on-camera interview. A statement would limit the possibility of saying something that could adversely affect us in court. However, an on-camera interview would project transparency and confidence, crucial elements in shaping public perception, albeit with higher risks. Given the ongoing litigation, the stakes were high, and there was no definitive "right" answer.
In need of a gut check, I consulted a trusted mentor and advisor. Their belief in my ability to navigate this complex situation gave me the confidence to take the riskier, but potentially more rewarding, path. Bolstered by their support, I opted for the on-camera interview. The decision was not made lightly; it was a calculated risk aimed at controlling the narrative as much as possible while adhering to legal constraints. The optics of an on-camera interview can convey a message that a written statement simply cannot: that we have nothing to hide and that we stand by our actions.
The Interview: A Delicate Balancing Act
During the interview, I was acutely aware of the tightrope I was walking. Every word had to be measured, every response calibrated to convey our stance without jeopardizing the ongoing litigation. Beyond the immediate questions at hand, I saw this as an opportunity to provide broader context—to help viewers understand why the work we do is not just important but vital to the health and safety of our community. While navigating the constraints of ongoing litigation, I also focused on conveying sincerity, genuine concern for our customers, and an unwavering commitment to our mission. It was a complex juggling act, but one that was crucial for maintaining the integrity and reputation of our organization.
The Promo: A Curveball
Just when I thought the most challenging part was over, the reporter released a misleading promo for the story, kicking off the sweeps season. The promo ran for a week, resulting in a flurry of questions from concerned employees. In response, I sent out an internal email to clarify the situation. This not only addressed their concerns but also equipped them with the information they needed to defend our organization to friends and family.
The Aftermath: Monitoring and Response
After the story aired, I closely monitored online conversations and direct feedback to gauge its impact. The good news was that the story didn't gain much traction, further confirming that the on-camera interview was the right choice for projecting transparency and openness. But the real win came in the form of the story's content itself. Through careful conversations with the reporter, I was able to guide the narrative in a direction that was far more favorable than her original approach. While the situation was far from ideal, these strategic decisions helped to mitigate potential damage and cast our organization in a more positive light than initially anticipated
Lessons Learned: The Power of Transparency
This experience reinforced several key principles in crisis communication:
Transparency Builds Trust: Even in high-stakes situations, being open and transparent can work in your favor. It builds trust and can mitigate potential damage.
Internal Communication is Crucial: Your employees are your first line of defense. Keeping your team informed empowers them to be ambassadors for your organization.
Monitor and Adapt: Crisis communication doesn't end when the story airs; it's crucial to monitor the situation and be prepared to adapt your strategy.
Conclusion
In the field of public affairs, the ability to make decisions based on calculated risks is not just an asset—it's a necessity. This recent interaction with an investigative reporter served as a poignant reminder of that fact. Opting for an on-camera interview was undoubtedly risky, especially given the ongoing litigation that constrained what could be said. However, it was a risk assessed, measured, and ultimately taken. It's instances like these that crystallize what it means to work in this field: the courage to make tough calls when there's no playbook, guided by a blend of expertise, instinct, and a willingness to venture into the unknown. And while every risk won't lead to a favorable outcome, the ability to make such calculated decisions is what often separates a challenging situation from a manageable one.
