Firing Rick Sanchez for his inappropriate comments about Jewish people and Jon Stewart was clearly a case of crisis-management PR for CNN. As we've learned in class, the best crisis management is handled quickly and the issue is directly addressed. While CNN did react quickly, firing Rick Sanchez within days of his comments, the only address I've come across is CNN saying that Sanchez "is no longer with the company."
In doing so, nowhere have they addressed that Sanchez's actions do not align with the values of CNN, nor have they released a statement saying that they condemn his behavior, nor have they reassured the public of CNN's mission and values. Do you think there will be implications for only half-managing the PR crisis?
Additionally, it appears at no point was Sanchez permitted to issue a public apology. Why do you think this was the case? Why did CNN handle the crisis the way they did instead of allowing Sanchez to apologize? Are apologies not enough? If so, when you are addressing the public through media is there no room for mistake? One strike, you're out?
Kelly brings up a great point that directly links with our group's case study. Why does it seem that news outlets falter with their PR strategies? The New York Times chose to ignore threats to their credibility instead of addressing the issues and setting up a counter-narrative. It seems that CNN did the same, choosing to ignore the Rick Sanchez issue, aside from firing him, and letting the public interpret what that firing meant.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think accounts for the shortcomings of news outlet PR? Is it too early for me to generalize? Are there any success stories for news outlet PR in the face of a crisis with their employees or threats to their credibility?