Just watching the Olympic opening ceremony took a bit of navigating – through the pouring rain.
Paris – the City of Light. However, a challenge shared by outside broadcast teams when TV images were fogged by rain-splashed lenses and shots continuing, with no cut-aways allowing a quick cloth wipe, meant it was anyone’s guess what the camera was pointed at. On the Seine: a rendition of ‘Imagine’ accompanied by yet another drenched pianist in front of a light feature that was fast resembling petrol thrown on a barbecue.
You get the picture. Well …actually you get anything but.
Clarity is important if we are to make sense of a subject. In a similar way transparency matters when something complex is to be fully understood, or, frankly, the public deserves a fuller answer from the outset – or as soon as is practicable.
In the pool it was the men’s 200m freestyle final that saw British swimmer, Adam Peaty, hopeful of a third title; last to appear and his a dominant presence. His tattooed torso saying everything: “into the light” – a strapline on the faith, graft and sacrifice that’s put him there. Alas, the race ended in a photo-finish and Peaty was short by 2 hundredths of a second (swimmers need to grow their fingernails). Acknowledging God, he added: “In my heart I’ve already won …I’m not crying because I’ve come second. I’m crying because it just took so much to get here.”
You can count on athletes to get the narrative right in the media interviews that follow. Each one of them with more than basic coaching in team communication and soundbite positivity.
There is public interest. A lot of public money goes into sport, and especially the Olympic teams. And so, there is always the news story to fill whether the event is won or… not quite won.
So, you think there is quite a leap from the pool or track to crisis communications… But everyone competing in Paris had an answer for when they won, and an answer for if they were to lose. I rather think Adam’s may have been the same.
Any news story requires reliable information, and at the start – in the pool, or in any crisis – things are not clear: the outcome is not fully understood; the picture is nearly always blurred.
In a crisis, such as a shipping incident, the little that is known is crucial. Clear information passed quickly enables us to monitor for any news; it helps us develop a draft holding statement. The updates that follow help provide further detail or help us to correct anything that might be confused or presumed.
It is when we are kept in the dark that the problems start: details are slow, hindered, withheld; a webpage isn’t updated or the phone unanswered. Worse still, ships go ‘dark’ seeking to be invisible, unaccountable. Speculation fills the vacuum. Media find other routes to the story.
Transparency is not often associated with shipping. Yet we see reports, boxes ticked for environmental and sustainability performance; newbuilds pioneering green marine fuels providing exemplar PR – raising the bar for any brand.
It is in a ship operator’s interest to help get any incident understood well. An early statement is brief, sticking to factual known points: what? where? and when? However, if you manage or operate the ship, you are considered a reliable and credible source. You can get the company’s position across or correct an inaccuracy. The news media will respect the company CEO or spokesperson if fuller updates are forthcoming, if that same can-do spirt surfaces.
It might take a line or two from a diver in a salvage operation as we saw in the Baltimore bridge response; an engineer explaining a careful refloat of a vessel; even a master praising his crew of skilled fire-fighters. Or some quick early context about an odd emission cloud spotted – to spike a story altogether.
Imagine… the news coverage is the better for it; the public are better informed.
