Pro journalists don't always get it right either...

I'm watching the back and forth about Kryptonite with great interest. We'll also soon be posting a chapter on "Blogging in Crisis."

Tonight I have a new one: a professional journalist wrote something that could get the DOJ to open a new investigation into Microsoft's business practices. A HUGE problem that goes deep into PR and legal issues. All due to factually incorrect reporting. Jump over to my blog to follow along.

The backstory is I'm working with PR, with team members, and with others (remember, it's 7:05 p.m. here after work hours are over) to get the real story out. We have a team member on the way to Google (I think that trip was planned). We're watching Bloglines and Technorati and other blog search engines to see who picks up the story.

Tips? When you see something damaging react FAST. Now. Not 10 minutes from now. Not tomorrow. Drop everything and get the key stakeholders contacted and involved.

Then write fast. Then call on your friends to get the true story out.

Will you still suffer negative PR and/or consequences? Maybe. But when you're in a crisis you should over-communicate.

Comments

[Nicole Simon]

"When you see something damaging react FAST"

If you have a different side of the story you should have learned by now, that fast means fast.

Means also mailing your peer group (which you of course have, right?) about that article in case of a real crisis and make them aware of your new article - faster that their usual read one hour.

In case you have not understood what fast means today, you should get your some coaching on how to do your job.

I don't know if you would also go in there, because it is not quite the thing with business, but shows also the power of the blogosphere: The attempt to bring back the US broadcast flag some weeks ago, where in 48 hours probably every senator in the US got to know by fax, mail, call that their constituence don't like it.

The newscycly of today is the time somebody needs to read news and blog about it.

And I think, this is why this Krypitonite lady's comment is bugging me. After MONTHS she still shows arrogance in insisting that we should have to listen to her. Why?

What you describe what you do seems only slightly different, but it has a big impact in my reception: You know, that you need to get your story out.

You will be bashed for it etc - but at least your side of the story will be talked about and on this way get's to people. It will be present when they write and / or easy to find.

"Make it easy for me to blog about two sides of the story" is different than "oh if you just would have come to me and said pretty please I would have told you ...". :)

[orcmid]

It's fascinating to see the unfolding of this event, and the response, over on Scobleizer.

I'm seeing something about tempering the "Respond Fast" reaction though. The way it is worded here -- contact stakeholders, then communicate more broadly -- is the most appropriate. That's definitely worth 10 minutes, because the fast-responder now has some grounding and valuable consultation behind the response.

So, it seems to me this is highly contextual. In particular, I think it can help temper over-reaction and any tendency to speculate (as maybe happened with the MSN Spaces in China reaction), but that it will really depend on the nature of the event. For the current one, there is a serious corporate interest in providing serious facts and demonstrations that defuse the speculations of the journalists (and many others, including the typical slash-dotter) who will automatically and cynically claim evidence of Microsoft's malicious intent. The response (screen shots, demonstration of how Microsoft works with competing developers to assure interoperability and compatibility, etc.) is way better than anything Robert says on his own without that backup.

I didn't read the account of the Kryptonite PR representative the same as Nicole. I disagree. Fact checking is important and it would have been good to find out what Kryptonite was doing and which products were impacted. Kryptonite failed, but it seems to me that they simply didn't understand what they were up against in the blogosphere.

I just had to correct a blog post where I used an attribution by another blogger and it was incorrect. I didn't fact check to see that the person named was or was not involved. So I've corrected my report, but I actually could have written my blog originally without parroting the attribution to someone that I didn't know of myself. That's a good lesson.

I know to fact-check when I get likely-hoax e-mails about one danger or another. (I have never ever received a valid warning by e-mail from some contact.) Even though I always provide a way for verification of the hoax, the people I report the hoax back to continue to send these things to some large distribution list and then wait to see if I send a fact-check back to them. Or they take me off their list (but my partner tells me when one comes onto her computer).

I agree about urgency. I think it must be handled carefully and cautiously and not with an over-reaction that may be discredited, adding to the problem.

[orcmid]

Oh, and the other one that refuses to die is the "Microsoft erases Apple" on Virtual Earth. It would be really useful to have those images dated, because I can't tell for my digs in West Seattle but my place in Expressions of Sunnyvale (not built out until around 1994) is shown in its complete state on the current Virtual Earth and it is not much of a bike ride to Infinity Way.

The dates of the images would be important facts and then none of us would have to wonder. (I wonder if the San Jose light-rail extension to Mountain View shows?)

[orcmid]

Sure enough, the light-rail line is in and it is operating. There seems to be a color change and reduction of image quality that marks the boundary between the best-latest and the older ones, and it is odd when the map overlay appeals to roads (Infinite Loop, actually) that aren't in the aerial view.

Now, knowing that the first thing that anyone is going to do is look up where they live and where they work, not the Hollywood sign, somebody could have figured out that dates would have been very useful. I promise not to patent the idea [;<).