The Prosecutor
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 13, 2011
- 12,252
- 19,452
- AFL Club
- Essendon
It's definitely not PR 101 when you do not have any knowledge for what you are accepting responsibility. Hird believed he was doing the best for the club with the best advice, why have a media communications expert if you ignore their advice?
Well shit, if he didn't know what he was accepting responsibility for, why the hell should we believe he has supposedly learned his lesson and will come back being all awesome and enlightened? He sought out this program, hired people to implement it and at the end of the day, couldn't tell the players what this program had potentially exposed them to. Of course he should accept responsibility.
And if Hird had to be advised to do that and wouldn't do it otherwise, then that says a hell of a lot about Hird.
Hird damn well was right to say he will accept responsibility, whether the club has responded adequately to that responsibility is debatable.
Read again what I said. From my understanding it was her suggestion to put all findings and a version of the report in the public arena. This has been used against the club ad nauseum.
Well shit, we as a club ****ed up. What, do you want us to ignore it and pretend it didn't happen and hope that members would just get over not being told anything?
Simple solution to that one, don't continuously **** up like we did in the first place and no report would be necessary. Besides, how did this even come back to being Lukin's 'fault'? Or is this just picking her from obscurity to blame?
The whole point of a media communications expert is to pick and choose what to tell the media to portray the best image of the subject (in this case EFC) to the public. Most decent media communications experts will advise being proactive to maintain control of the media agenda. The advice to remain silent allowed the AFL and the media to run with their agendas for months. Crisis situations require clear thought, not to remain silent and bunker down. In fact remaining silent and bunkering down gives the impression that the club believes it's in crisis too, which only further perpetrates poor public image.
The whole point being that when she chose to release something it was in total contradiction to her supposed brief for a media communications/public relations expert. She could have 'won' by not being either (a) totally incompetent; or even worse (b) working on behalf of another entity against the interests of her employer. She could have 'won' by not suggesting the club remain silent, by not suggesting her employers release potential self-incriminating reports to the public, whether there was actually much grounds for incrimination or not.
Well quite frankly, you're demonstrating your ignorance in the field here. How exactly do you be proactive in this story? Accept responsibility for your failings and any adverse findings? Obviously can't do that because of your first point... So again, please elaborate on how one has any sort of efficient pro activeness in a dynamic crisis framework, because believe me, you would be an innovator amongst the industry and the most sought after PR consultant in the world if you have a working solution.
As for not responding exaggerating the crisis, I dare say shutting up and focusing on the thing that your organisation is there to do dispels crisis talks more than featuring on 6 o'clock news every evening trying to shoot down more and more arguments as more and more are made in response to your comments.
As for the rest of your allegations in this quoted text, either put up or shut up. She is very much competent and made very little mistakes that could be attributed to her.
Like Hird?
The man who got a two-year contract extensions while many others involved in this are no longer at the club?
Oh, but poor Hirdy.