If you know negative coverage is imminent, you do your damndest to blunt the negativity by getting your talking points included in the negative coverage. It's a bonus if you can do it without directly providing an interview or written statement, which would validate the story.
The O did this very effectively by "leaking" Sandy Rowe's staff e-mail to Willamette Week, excerpts of which are peppered throughtout the WW piece. It's easy to pick out the O's talking points in the WW piece:
-The problem was limited to Hall
-Hall will be disciplined
-Accepting gifts is not tolerated at the O
The result is clearly much softer coverage than if WW had simply broken the story and forced the O to scramble.
From a PR standpoint, brilliantly played by the O. Let's see what, if anything, they do now.
If you know negative coverage is imminent, you do your damndest to blunt the negativity by getting your talking points included in the negative coverage. It's a bonus if you can do it without directly providing an interview or written statement, which would validate the story.
The O did this very effectively by "leaking" Sandy Rowe's staff e-mail to Willamette Week, excerpts of which are peppered throughtout the WW piece. It's easy to pick out the O's talking points in the WW piece:
-The problem was limited to Hall
-Hall will be disciplined
-Accepting gifts is not tolerated at the O
The result is clearly much softer coverage than if WW had simply broken the story and forced the O to scramble.
From a PR standpoint, brilliantly played by the O. Let's see what, if anything, they do now.