This post was originally a comment on this blog post at justanotherpr
I’m interested in the issues and crises where companies get caught between a rock and a hard place. What do you do if ethical or legal reasons preclude you from responding openly…as seems to be the case with the campaign against ABC Good Game and their decision to take presenter Junglist off air? (See here for details: http://bit.ly/2dtQA4)
One can only speculate – but assuming ABC reasons for not commenting had something to do with Junglist’s terms of employment – they wouldn’t be in a position to contradict the campaign against their decision, for reasons of employee privacy.
While the ABC might actually like to open up and share their reasons, some viewers are bound to assume that they aren’t commenting because they simply have no good reasons.
In issues with an emotional dimension, the public might be inclined to take sides without knowing the facts. And organisations that take an ethical approach might be punished for doing so…simply because their silence is taken as evidence of guilt.
Would love to hear views on situations such as these.
No comments:
Post a Comment