Here are a few of my observations:
1. The media are working harder than ever to generate fear and outrage.
2. Early communication demonstrated a lack of preparation.
3. Later communication demonstrated risks of political involvement.
4. Social media demonstrated its value in both operational response and public communication.
5. Outdated communication policies continue to hamper effective communication.
1. Media fear and outrage
Is there any doubt that the American public exhibited unwarranted fear in the face of the threat? Certainly, seeing what was happening in West Africa was cause for legitimate concern. While I wouldn't say the reaction was one of panic, it did seem that we were one or two bad news stories away from having the fear take control. There seemed to be little responsibility demonstrated by the media. This post by Politico (which admitted to participating in the obsession) provides plenty of examples. Headlines like You Are Not Nearly Scared Enough About Ebola and The New York Times reporting the highly unlikely scenario of airborne transmission provide just a couple of examples.
What about outrage? The blame game was played big time from the beginning. Trust and credibility in those working hard — risking their lives and health in some cases — were consistently undermined. And when the media tired of pointing out lapses in preparation for fighting the virus, they focused on the inconsistent communication.
This is likely nothing new to you. But I marvel at the practice of so many in communication. Just today in reviewing some crisis comms training material I saw again the headline: How to make the media your partner in an emergency. I'm sorry, but their agenda is different. Sure, there are many examples of where they are incredibly important and helpful. But working effectively with the media begins with an understanding that their No. 1 responsibility is to gather eyes. It's not to tell the truth, it's not to help provide perspective, and it is certainly not to carry your message. It is to gather eyes. Knowing that, you can work more effectively with them and even more, communicate directly and around them.
2. Early communication showed a lack of preparation.
Yes, there were some missteps in early communication. There were some conflicting messages and while the CDC emerged early on, appropriately, as the voice to trust, even there there were some missteps.
What this says is that there may not have been the level of preparation at the federal level, with the CDC and from the CDC to state and regional health agencies about Ebola, and how to communicate with the public. I have utmost respect for the CDC's crisis communication believing it is probably the best in class in this regard. But I suspect discussions internally including with the administration, are taking a hard look at their preparation and what to do next time.
3. Later communication showed risks of political involvement.
I saw a lot of parallels between Ebola and the 2010 Gulf oil spill when it came to the federal administration's involvement. I noted in conversation with others that I was not the only one. The first response is to let the experts handle it. But then the heat, fear and blame game from the media cause a change in political judgment. This could be dangerous to the president, so the reaction is to step in, take charge, try to control the message and communicate that everything is going to be OK because No. 1 is in charge. Contrast this to the strategy that says: "The CDC has the experts we need to deal effectively with this. We're providing the CDC with the resources it needs, it will communicate about this." His actions further stripped the CDC of credibility, opened the way for enterprising politicians like Govs. Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie to demonstrate that it wasn't just the president in charge, but we are too, and we can one-up him in protecting the public.
The result was a confusing mess. A "czar" who was missing in action from day one, or "self-quarantined" according to one wiseacre. The voice of the CDC removed from the scene, states and cities left to their own devices in trying to calm fears — in general a bit of a mess.
We need our elected leaders to step up and communicate openly with the public. But they need to do it in a way that builds trust and confidence in the people who need to do the job. If their only goal is to inoculate themselves against blame, the predictable result is further erosion of trust just when it is most needed.
4. Social media demonstrated its value in operational response and public communication.
I had the opportunity to talk to one person on the front lines of the Ebola information challenge and was encouraged to see the way social media was incorporated into the operation of the emergency response team. The Economist had an article talking about how using the big data available from cellphone use, officials could more effectively plot progress of the disease. Much more will come from using citizen content in the future.
The CDC is again leading the way in using social media to communicate directly with the public. But many local, state and regional organizations were and are using social media to answer questions, quell rumors and provide much needed information. I have heard of some great examples of rumors about new victims gaining traction and contributing to near panic in some neighborhoods that were relatively quickly squashed by official use of social media. Again, I'd be very interested in hearing from any of you about specific examples of rumor management — rumors arising from social media as well as media misreporting.
5. Outdated communication policies continue to hamper effective communication.
As a general observation it seems to me that many agencies are still operating under the old rule of "never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." I did not see agencies challenging media miscommunication, hyper-ventilating or promulgating rumors. I recall the time during California wildfires when reporters were questioning then Gov. Schwarzenegger on his use, or lack of use, of firefighting aircraft. He did all but call them girlie-men. He challenged their assumptions, their question and the story they had pre-determined to be right. There seems to be continuing reluctance to address media practices and stories. It doesn't have to be personal, it doesn't have to be aggressive. I recently participated in a webinar with Patrice Cloutier and he asked the intriguing question: Do rumors offer an opportunity for organizations? Yes, I replied. Because if it is valuable to you to be seen as the credible voice in a crisis, the voice the public can trust, then rumors provide the opportunity to demonstrate your credibility and trustworthiness. But only if they are identified, corrected and directly communicated quickly.
If you have examples or insights related to Ebola communications, you can email me at gerald.baron@agincourt.us.
