|
by Duncan Matheson
published in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal and the Fredericton Daily Gleaner Op-ed Pages
Last December's Air Canada crash in Fredericton stands as an excellent case study in public relations. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the response is of the "what not to do" variety, so it was with some bemusement that I read the media accounts of the recently released report on the incident.
According to the media reports, Vernon Grose, an American risk management expert brought in by Transport Canada to study the accident and recommend improvements for emergency response at Canadian airports, has focused on what he calls "misinformation", and he criticizes the media for the way they handled the story.
With all due respect, Mr. Grose must be challenged on this. While he makes valid criticism of the shortcomings of Transport Canada's communications in the wake of the accident, as a risk management expert, he should realize the way the media works, and if he does, he would find no room to be critical of its actions in this case.
There is no question that Air Canada and Transport Canada both took a "hit" from a public relations point of view. I would even go so far as to say it may have been an unfair one, but it is not the media who should shoulder the blame. To the contrary, the media simply did their job, while Transport Canada and Air Canada, did not, at least not at first.
We use the crash example in our media relations and crisis communications courses, because it follows the classic pattern of how media coverage in the wake of a crisis, is often dictated by who is quick to respond, and who is not.
In a crisis, the media needs information quickly, and it will get it wherever it can. In this case, the group representing airport firefighters were quick off the mark to point out that the policy to privatize airports is leading to reduced ability to respond to these types of accidents, and they made the point that if there had been a fire in this case, it could have been tragic.
There was also considerable attention, apparently initiated by the firefighters' association, that the Fredericton crew was actually off duty at the time of the accident. Whether Transport Canada policy is having an adverse affect on safety isn't something I am qualified to comment on, but that's not the point here. The point is that the firefighters were available to comment, and the "other side", Transport Canada, was not. And that is why coverage unfolded as it did.
This isn't brain surgery, and for Mr. Grose to accuse the media of irresponsible journalism for reporting what the firefighter's association said, is ludicrous. Hello. Reporters put the same questions to Transport Canada, and specifically, according to what I read, to Fredericton airport manager Neil Campbell, who apparently offered no comment. If the story wasn't balanced, as I guess Mr. Grose is suggesting, it isn't the media's fault. Rather, it is the fault of those at Transport Canada who failed to offer the other side.
Mr. Grose says the media was irresponsible for asking what may have happened if firefighters hadn't been at the airport, or if the plane had caught fire. Mr. Grose suggests speculation of this nature led to unfair coverage and a distorted public perception of the airport's emergency preparedness.
Now lets look at that. Spokespeople not only for the firefighters, but also for the pilots' association and the Transportation Safety Board all agreed that if there had been a fire, people, possibly all the passengers and crew could have died. We also know that fires fairly often ensue when a plane crashes. Given this, is Mr. Grose suggesting that it would be more responsible for the media to ignore this?
It is possible that in this case, because it was dark and because the snow was deep, and because the plane came to rest a good distance from the runway, that if there was a fire, there was no way emergency vehicles could have gotten to them in time anyway, even if total emergency response was available. But this too, is speculation.
The point is, when a crisis strikes, there will be public speculation, and reporters will ask the "what if" questions. Sometimes, when the scenarios are far-fetched, they shouldn't be answered, but when the scenarios are quite possible, as was the case here, they deserve a response.
And when that response isn't forthcoming, those who avoided the question have no one to blame but themselves, when the coverage isn't to their liking.
If the coverage unduly frightened Canadians, as Mr. Grose suggests, it isn't the media's fault. It is the fault of the Transport Canada officials who dodged the tough questions. And when you bring it to the issue of responsibility, you could argue that Transport Canada and Air Canada spokespeople failed their responsibility by not reassuring us that our fears were unfounded, if in fact that's the case.
Perhaps the firefighters did use the crash as an opportunity to further their agenda. It wouldn't be the first time this kind of thing has happened. Truth be known, it happens every day. It doesn't mean that by reporting what they said, the media somehow didn't do their job properly. Heaven knows I can be as critical of the media as anyone, but in this case, I have seen nothing to suggest they acted in any way but responsible.
|
