Corrections & Clarifications: A Short Course (Jim Lukaszewski's Strategy Newsletter)

Giving interviews is necessary but can be risky. One of an interviewee’s greatest frustrations, especially with print news stories, is what the reporter and editor may do with the answers he or she gives. With broadcast stories, it’s what reporter leaves out that is of most concern. With critics, competitors, and complainers, it’s how much confusion, emotion, and allegation they can get into a story about you. What if the reporter makes a mistake? What if the reporter leaves really important things out of the story? If the reporter does make errors and mistakes, how do you effectively correct them? Or should you? What do you do about unrelated, confusing, negative, sensational, or competitive ideas that creep into the story? What if the story is just plain wrong? We advocate a Web-based technique we call “Corrections & Clarifications” where a print story or the transcript of a broadcast news story is laid out in such a way that it can be effectively corrected and clarified. These corrections and clarifications are then put on a Web site, and often also e-mailed to key stakeholders and stakeholder groups. This approach allows us to avoid the restrictions that letters to the editor, op-eds, and other media-dominated or controlled response mechanisms tend to place on our ability to have correct information on-the-record and available promptly to the publics we care about. This response technique works equally well with flyers, letters, news releases, video news releases, and white papers from those who oppose us in critical high-profile situations. Why do this? As neat as this idea is, when first suggested, almost every client wants to know why anyone would put bad stuff, of any kind, up on the Web, for any reason. Their question is, “Won’t this just make it available to lots more people and critics?” Here are five reasons why you should do this: Your record is your responsibility. The public perception of your record is also your responsibility. This strategy manages both the public perception and the record. Constructive approaches control the tone of debate, discussion, and differences of opinion. Your constituents expect you to do this. Honorable people can, and should, answer any and all questions. The technique tends to script everyone ? constituents, critics, the media, and commentators.