Singapore (18 July 2010 2300 hrs). I just checked the web for more information on the above incident and I noticed that the online edition of the Straits Times expanded on the SPF's statement clarifying that the photographer had been warned repeatedly to stop taking photographs as he was "endangering" himself. It was only when the photographer "struggled" with the police officer was he handcuffed. It is interesting to note that the MHA website still did not carry the police's official statement on the incident.
So what can we learn from this ...
In Crisis Communication, the affected organisation must get its side of the story out. While replying to reporters' questions is one way, this makes the facts subject to intepretation before publication. In addition, print space is limited and it is likely that the story will be edited and para-phrased. Once this happens, pertinent facts of the case may unwittingly be ommitted. Hence, in a Crisis Communication plan, the affected organisation should use its website to tell the full facts of the case.
So what can we learn from this ...
In Crisis Communication, the affected organisation must get its side of the story out. While replying to reporters' questions is one way, this makes the facts subject to intepretation before publication. In addition, print space is limited and it is likely that the story will be edited and para-phrased. Once this happens, pertinent facts of the case may unwittingly be ommitted. Hence, in a Crisis Communication plan, the affected organisation should use its website to tell the full facts of the case.
RSS Feed