Though the question—prompted by an uproar after African-American senior cadets from West Point raised their fists in a photo—is the focus on many news outlets and social media, PR pros might ask a different question:
Is there a point that you must respond to a politically charged backlash—instead of quelling online critics with silence?
A crisis timeline
Last month, one of the 16 senior cadets in the photo tweeted the image, which drew backlash from several social media users who accused the women of racism.
One of the more vocal critics, former soldier and online public figure John Burk, wrote in a blog post that the cadets were showing support for the Black Lives Matter movement—violating both the academy’s honor code and Armed Forces protocol:
The students below in the picture have been making their voices heard more and more behind closed doors to senior ranking officers, until now. This overt display of the black lives matter movement is not, in itself wrong, but to do so while in uniform is completely unprofessional and not in keeping with what the USMA stands for, and as well as violating the DOD directive 1344.10 which states:
A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:
4.1.1.3. Join a partisan or nonpartisan political club and attend its meetings when NOT iN uniform, subject to the restrictions of subparagraph 4.1.2.4. (See DoD Instruction 1334.1 (Reference ©.)
A member of the Armed forces shall not:
4.1.2.12. Display a partisan political sign, poster, banner, or similar device visible to the public at one’s residence on a military installation, even if that residence is part of a privatized housing development.
The ladies before you are class seniors and have been making their voices heard more and more on an app called “Yik Yak” where users are kept anonymous, yet no one dares speak up in public against them due to them being accused of being racist and risk being expelled from the academy from hurting someone’s feelings.
Burk shared his blog post on Facebook, where it has received thousands of shares, “likes” and comments. It has also been reported in news articles and referenced by other social media users as the argument over the situation has grown:
The New York Times reported that on April 28, West Point opened an investigation:
West Point opened an investigation on April 28 into whether the women violated Army rules that prohibit political activities while in uniform. Now, as the women wait to hear if they will be punished, they are gaining supporters who say they were simply making a gesture of solidarity and strength.
On May 5, West Point’s director of public affairs emailed a brief statement to The Army Times:
“We can confirm that the cadets in this photo are members of the U.S. Military Academy’s Class of 2016,” said West Point’s director of public affairs Lt. Col. Christopher Kasker in an emailed statement. “Academy officials are conducting an inquiry into the matter.“
RELATED: Keep calm during a crisis with these PR tips.
The cadets in the photo contend that the gesture was celebratory and not political. On May 8, The Guardian reported:But Mary Tobin, a West Point graduate and mentor who knows the students, said they were simply celebrating their forthcoming graduation as a shared accomplishment, like a sports team raising helmets after a win.
“It was a sign of unity,” Tobin, a 2003 graduate, said in a telephone interview. “They weren’t trying to imply any allegiance to any movement.”
Burk is maintaining his stance, writing that an anonymous source in the academy gave him information that at least a few of the women in the photo are supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement and have, on previous occasions, worn T-shirts expressing that support.
Though West Point officials have largely remained silent, the argument is continuing to grow on Twitter and other social media platforms, with some saying that the cadets should not be punished for showing pride and unity—and others saying that the cadets must be held accountable.
The growing backlash continues to get coverage from several news outlets.
What this means for communicators
Whether the cadet’s gestures were a sign of unity and triumph or a political statement, the photo attracted enough attention to bring West Point to open an inquiry.
However, its crisis communications have been almost nonexistent—and until recently, the drama had been contained within smaller online circles of critics and supporters.
It was Burk’s blog and subsequent Facebook post that reignited people’s anger, brought awareness to a larger group of people and caught the attention of reporters.
Though West Point officials continue to give only laconic messages to news media outlets, the public is now watching and waiting to hear the result of the investigation. West Point—and the cadets involved—have seemingly missed out on the option to keep silent about the controversy.
Allen West, a retired lieutenant colonel and Fox News commentator, wrote in a blog post that a “hypersensitive racial atmosphere” means actions that once might have been innocuous now must be considered. West also asserted that the cadets involved should apologize:
They need to make a public statement of apology to their class, and to the United States Military Academy. … Because the 16 female cadets will be called upon to lead, and leadership isn’t based on color.
Whether or not you agree with West’s assessment, the situation underlines an important issue for crisis communicators in the increasingly connected world: What once were issues in which PR pros could resolve by responding to specific groups to avoid a bigger blowout can now easily be put on display to the public at large. All it takes is a Twitter trend or Facebook post with enough “likes,” shares and comments.
How do you think crisis communicators should respond in situations like these, PR Daily readers? How can the industry adjust to the brighter spotlight cast upon such crises?
from Ragan.com http://ift.tt/27aJ7Fr via web video marketing
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/27aKCTZ
No comments:
Post a Comment