Oct 19, 2009
Media Strategy Includes Its Own Hoax
Sheriff Jim Alderden’s strategy to be less than forthright with media about last week’s balloon incident gives authorities the last laugh. The Larimer County Sheriff apologized yesterday to media for disseminating “misleading” information to reporters in order to investigate the Heene’s story about a runaway helium balloon having their six-year-old son in it. Initially, the sheriff publicly supported the accuracy of events before revealing what authorities really suspected.
Law enforcement deflates TV dreams for the Heene family.
Granted, issuing less-than-candid beliefs and statements wasn’t exactly transparent. Unlike most elected officials, publicly traded executives and nonprofit leaders, law enforcement officers can’t always be totally open while still in problem-solving mode. From my experience in the corrections industry, I learned that good police work involves analytical skills, the process of deduction, specific interviewing techniques, astute observer of human behavior and role playing. As a former journalist, I know that most, if not all, of those same skills apply to members of the media.
So while the Heenes believe they’re launching a career in reality TV, law enforcement ensures that the last laugh will be on the parents. Tossing in a little contradictory messaging to throw the perps off track is just part of the punch line.
Am I missing something here, or should we insist on transparency all the time, regardless of the strategy?
Very good observation and a timely topic. The same issues have been debated re: military public affairs strategies tied to wartime information distribution, management and messaging . . . i.e. is there a time and place to withhold information or to disseminate information that is actually intended to mislead? Should the ethics of public relations in a government / law enforcement or military context be the exact same as in all commercially driven contexts? I think every situation has to be judged by its own set of motives, intentions and desired outcomes — and further viewed through the lens of whether a commercial goal is in play (selling a product) or a national security / law enforcement goal is in play (keeping terrorists from killing innocent people or seeking to convict a criminal).
Interesting thought Susan! This is a common question I ask myself and clients when working with them on their overall image – whether via media or branding to how they do business. Certainly, there should be “truth in image” (as is the name of my new blog), but at the same time, transparency sometimes needs to be postponed in order to obtain a critical objective.
Having worked as a 911 dispatcher for a short period of time, in addition to networking with officers for several years (this was years ago), we saw where many cases, the need for an alternate story upfront was critical to a successful investigation. Public opinion is not of concern to those trying to keep the law in line and the public safe. I think the same consideration, to a point, can be extended into business. An example of this could be a business or product launch – where some vagueness may be necessary in order to protect the success of the launch from competitive watchdogs. As with most scenarios – it’s a case by case consideration of balancing morality and ethics with long term success.
Excellent points, Paula. Obviously your experience as a 911 dispatcher lends itself to keeping calm and keeping things in the proper perspective. If only everyone had such a grounded mindset! Thanks for your comments.
Couldn’t the sheriff simply have stated that they’re still conducting the investigation instead of misleading journalists intentionally? I think that he shouldn’t have stated what he thought the outcome would be, especially when it turned out to be different from his original statement.
Though, the sheriff isn’t the only one to blame in this scenario. Didn’t the media find it fishy that they were being called directly by the family about this fiasco? Typically, in times of tragedy, the local TV station isn’t the first call one would make. This story is just so bizarre it’s hard to pinpoint all of the things that went wrong. Perhaps the lesson here is this – when something sounds too strange to be true, it probably is!
Excellent points! Sharp journalists surely took note of the audacity and oddity of the situation. I see a future case study on this. And you’re right – there are too many things that went wrong on so many levels with this one.
I also heard that there may be media involvement in the planning of the hoax… have we heard any more updates on that part of the scenario? Laura, you’re right about the calls – as a parent, I’d be calling 911 and let them handle public awareness if it would aid in helping my child. This is an interesting one to watch!
I heard that about the media too – who knows, especially if reality show producers were involved. What if someone were injured or worse on this wild goose chase? The layers of culpability seem to have no end………
I think they had to lie to bait the trap, which creates a problem. Police telling lies is a bad thing, and they do it all the time. They’re trained to do it. They lose sight of right and wrong and end up lying, not only to suspects, but to witnesses, victims and everyone else. When our truck was stolen, police told my wife that they had security footage of her driving it and a witness who saw her. This was, of course a complete fabrication, as she didn’t even drive at the time, and certainly not a stick.
I agree – there’s a fine line between flat-out lying and manipulation for information. In your personal situation, you clearly experienced a series of falsehoods, if not downright corruption. What in the world would police possibly gain by being untruthful regarding a stolen vehicle? So sorry for your experience as it taints the entire profession. Thanks for sharing.