The "press"ure cooker: are you ready to manage the media?

Imagine that it's a beautiful Friday afternoon. It's the middle of the summer and as the manager of a major aquatic facility, you have a rare weekend off. While driving home, you have the convertible top down and you're listening to your favorite Beach Boys cassette when you receive a frantic car phone call from a panicked staff member.

Apparently, a 1-year-old boy disregarded verbal warnings and signage not to dive into the shallow end of the pool. Only minutes earlier he cannonballed into the shallow end landing directly upon the head of a pregnant mother whose back was facing the boy. She was removed from the pool unconscious and not breathing. Paramedics have arrived and are administering emergency medical services at this moment. It is feared that the victim may have suffered a broken neck. No other information is available at this time.

You have several options: you can immediately turn your car around and return to your facility confident that at this very moment your emergency response and crisis management plans are being prudently implemented; or you can crawl into the back seat of your convertible and collapse into the fetal position muttering something about the Fifth Amendment. This article is addressed to those leaning toward the latter option.

Following the recent fatal bus-train tragedy that occurred in Fox River Grove, Illinois, the public was understandably inundated with radio, television and newspaper reports for weeks concerning every aspect of this tragedy. Notably, many of these early news reports immediately explored, and even suggested blame. Parties brought into question included the driver, the school, the train operator, state agencies, and the local police. Arguably, such practices reflect an intense need for accountability as well as the competitive nature of the news industry. Negative implications based upon incomplete investigations or slanted news reporting can have a significant and lasting impact on the public's perception, your agency's reputation, the crisis itself, and even future litigation.

In the recreational aquatic setting, there is a public perception of invincibility. It is unthinkable that a drowning can occur at a staffed facility. Indeed, the very term "lifeguard" fuels the public's perception that their lives can never be at risk. Therefore, it is understandable that when the unthinkable occurs, the public is less forgiving. As too many aquatic professionals know, drownings and other aquatic accidents can occur and not be the fault of your lifeguards or your agency. However, if you are not prepared to balance the facts and separate myths from reality and truth from illusion, you may become a media victim of the crisis.

To prevent this, park and recreation agencies are strongly encouraged to develop crisis management policies and procedures--and periodically review their effectiveness--to help ensure that your agency and staff will be prepared to effectively manage the initial phases of a crisis, particularly the media.

Given the diversity of recreational and non-recreational public services provided by most park and recreation agencies, the range of potential crisis situations is almost endless. Aquatic facilities have experienced tragedies arising from drownings, environmental catastrophes, sexual abuse and harassment, natural disasters, fires, and communicable disease exposure that have all come under some level of media scrutiny.

Regretfully, no scientific formula enables us to predict with certainty, when and where the next crisis will occur or whether the crisis will be deemed "news worthy." The potential of media involvement will depend on a variety of tangibles and intangibles that are hard to predict.

Historically, a significant factor which will influence the level of media response to a crisis situation will be the magnitude of other news events occurring on a regional or national basis that day. For instance, if an agency tragedy occurred on the same day the Cubs won a World Series, it is easy to imagine the media overlooking the local tragedy. Other major factors that affect the media response will be the visual impact of any video footage, time of day, weather, political atmosphere, and situations involving controversial or "hot" topics such as AIDS, sexual harassment, criminal abuse and children being left home alone. It is safe to say that a slow news day can turn your seemingly minor crisis into headline news.

Before the days of satellite feeds, the Internet and other avenues of instant communication, the reporting of news could take hours or days before it reached the general public. Only a generation ago organizations had a better opportunity to evaluate the causes and effects of a crisis and develop a media response. However, we now live in an electronic age where the flow of news reports is almost instantaneous with the event, and there is intense competition between news media to provide the most current (not necessarily accurate) information.

This competition can result in the presentation of unsubstantiated facts, or slanted reporting which could have a significant impact upon many facets of the crisis, including one of a public agency's most important assets--its reputation in the community. Mindful that an agency will generally have but one opportunity to make a first impression; your ability to respond promptly to inaccurate, fictitious or biased reporting may be your only opportunity to preserve your good reputation. Let's face it, in today's fast-paced society, yesterday's news is old news. How many of us read the retractions, corrections and clarifications section of the newspaper or closely listen to them when presented on television?

An effective media relations plan may not only minimize the negative, but accentuate the positive. The media can be used effectively in presenting balanced facts to the public following a crisis, in neutralizing biased or inaccurate reporting and in enhancing your agency's reputation. It is the responsibility of your crisis management team to coordinate such efforts via fact finding, strategy conferences and fact dissemination through a spokesperson(s), press release(s), or video tape. In other words, your agency can maximize its ability to be the master of its own media destiny. Indeed, your agency's efforts may result in the following headlines: "All Safely Evacuated From Pool During Tornado" or "Quick Actions by Lifeguards Save Lives." Conversely, no crisis management plan may result in these headlines: "While Personnel at Play, Toddler Drowns" or "Unsafe Water Slide Results in Death of Mother."

Develop a Plan

While developing a crisis management plan, your agency should closely evaluate any existing written emergency response plans. As we know, emergencies do not necessarily develop into crises. Aquatic tragedies and crises can often be averted, prevented or minimized through effective lifeguard hiring, training, auditing and emergency response planning. Employees must be trained in their respective and collective roles following an emergency.

While each agency's written crisis communication plan will be unique, all should include certain basic components: 1. Crisis team members and their respective roles 2. Crisis head and spokesperson chain of responsibility 3. The designation of a spokesperson 4. General and specific crisis team action steps 5. The role of employees and elected officials 6. Sample generic press release 7. Emergency phone list 8. Media phone list for television, radio, and newspapers 9. Post-crisis evaluation form

Assemble a Team

One of the first steps in the development of your written crisis communication plan is to establish a crisis team. This team will typically consist of the agency director, a member of the governing board, agency attorney, superintendents, and aquatic manager. Next, develop a chain of responsibility to identify alternative crisis team heads and spokespersons in the event that the designated persons are not immediately available or will not be available at all. Each alternate crisis team head and spokesperson must be intimately familiar with the agency's crisis plan, operations and management philosophies.

This team is the heart of the decision making process. All official agency responses following a crisis should arise from the flow of verified information to the crisis team. Important information needed by the crisis team typically includes verified information pertaining to causes of the crisis, those affected, damage estimates, public reaction, and current media reports. Based on the circumstances, the crisis team may choose to hold a press conference, provide a press release or make no statement to the media.

In an aquatic crisis, the aquatic manager should be responsible for the coordination, verification and documentation of all related information to the crisis team (witness statements, employee statements, pool conditions, environmental factors, lifeguard certification records and other facts relating to the incident). In essence, this manager is assigned to determine the who, where, what, why, and when.

Define Roles

Your plan should clearly define staff roles for each crisis team member (agency director, superintendents, office staff, other key employees, elected officials, safety coordinator, attorney, and spokespersons). Often, the agency director will act as the official crisis team head and will be responsible for the overall coordination of the crisis management plan. He or she should ensure that each component within the plan is being implemented as necessary, and that there is consensus among the team when important decisions are made.

If your agency has a parks department, this manager should be responsible for coordinating any needed agency resources to manage physical aspects associated with a crisis. One of the first duties should be to ensure that the crisis team has access to the facility where they will be meeting. Depending upon the nature of the crisis, the parks superintendent may be responsible for coordinating the efforts with other governmental entities such as investigative authorities and responding entities such as police departments, utility services, OSHA, EPA, etc. Your parks manager may also be responsible for establishing a media center where news agencies can gather to monitor the crisis.

Agency office personnel also play a vital role in the management of a major crisis. Staff should be assigned to answer and document telephone inquiries, public visitors, reporters, photographers, or others who make inquiries. The following information should be obtained and logged from all incoming calls and public visitors:

1. Names and addresses

2. Titles and Organizations

3. Name of the newspaper, radio, or TV station (if applicable)

4. Telephone and fax numbers

5. Reporter's deadlines (if applicable)

The board president or other governing board member should be a member of the crisis team. This person provides valuable insight from an elected officer's perspective and can be an important link in keeping other board members apprised of developments in the crisis. Board members and elected officials should not make individual statements to the news media until after meeting with the crisis team. This will help to ensure that the agency provides a unified voice to the news media in managing the crisis.

If the agency has a safety coordinator or risk manager, they can assist the crisis team by conducting or contributing to the internal agency investigation of the incident, verifying information and preserving evidence through photographs. The safety coordinator should also complete any applicable accident reporting forms to be submitted to the insurance carrier, and is usually responsible for contacting any necessary governmental agencies. For example, the EPA may need to be notified following a pool chemical release. At the conclusion of the crisis, the safety coordinator should formulate a plan of action which eliminates or prevents a similar crisis from happening.

Individual employees can have a direct impact on what information is provided to the media. The phrase "loose lips sink ships" would certainly apply if inaccurate information provided by an individual employee conflicts with information provided through the agency's designated spokesperson. For example, the strain on rescuing lifeguards could be tremendous, making them feel as though they "freaked out" during the rescuing process. This is a common reaction, when in reality they performed as trained given a particular situation.

It can be very beneficial to speak with other assisting lifeguards or witnesses to verify the rescue sequence and then share this with the rescuing lifeguards. Understandably, a police report stating that a rescuing lifeguard was unable to provide an accurate account of the rescue because he/she "freaked out" will open up the proverbial Pandora's box of problems. You can imagine the media reaction to a lifeguard statement that they "freaked out" and how difficult it would be to later explain that the emergency response went as planned.

Interview Witnesses

Similarly, efforts must be made to discuss the incident with non-employee witnesses prior to the media and outside investigators. The aquatic setting understandably creates illusions to the nontrained eye. If five lifeguards are on duty yet two are wearing T-shirts, a pool patron may believe that only three lifeguards were on duty and therefore the facility was under-staffed. Patrons may not recognize roving lifeguards and presume the only lifeguards on duty are those in chairs.

Further, your most hostile witness will often be the patron who reported to the rescuing lifeguard that a swimmer was in distress. This patron will typically presume that the lifeguard should jump from the chair into the water. It is not uncommon for the patron to interpret the lifeguard's poise and calm demeanor as insensitivity and inattentiveness. In reality, such a patron is generally unaware that lifeguards deal with false alarms on a daily basis and must determine whether or not there is a false alarm and thereafter calmly locate the victim prior to further rescue efforts.

For this reason, your agency must make all reasonable attempts to meet with all non-employee witnesses to determine whether they are hostile witnesses and whether or not their impressions are based upon illusion rather than reality. Damaging first impressions can be neutralized and witnesses will often modify their opinions once they know the facts and circumstances. They will be better prepared to meet with the press and other investigative authorities without intentionally or inadvertently compromising the position of your agency.

Regretfully, in the aquatics setting it is necessary to educate the public--including the media--as to the nature of the industry. Like police officers and fire fighters, lifeguards are routinely subject to false alarms and practical jokes. It is the rule rather than the exception that on a daily basis, lifeguards witness children and adults pretending to be drowning, doing the dead-man's float, screaming, "Help me, help me!" and challenging each other to see how long one can remain on the bottom of the pool before coming up for air. Lifeguard conduct in determining whether life-threatening situations are real or fabricated, may appear to the casual observer to be unprofessional. So, your team must make efforts to assist witnesses and the media in understanding the nature of lifeguarding and why lifeguards cannot guarantee the personal safety of everyone.

Train Your Staff

All employees should be trained to direct any media inquiries regarding the crisis to the agency's spokesperson or director. Specific training elements should include directing all inquiries to the spokesperson, never discussing liability on behalf of the agency, and never making "off record" comments concerning the crisis. Do you remember when noted news anchor Connie Chung asked the mother of Newt Gingrich to share her personal opinion of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as an "off-the-record" comment? Mother Gingrich whispered her opinion in Ms. Chung's ear, only to have Ms. Chung reveal the secret on national television.

The designated agency spokesperson should be the primary voice of information arising from your agency. When choosing the spokesperson, it is important that this person has in-depth knowledge of your agency, and presents him or herself well on camera. The spokesperson may not always be the agency director. An elected official, superintendent or the aquatic manager may have better knowledge of the agency's practices and be more comfortable speaking to the media. This individual will reflect your agency's professionalism and ability to handle the crisis.

In making a determination as to whether or not your agency will hold a press conference, the crisis team must weigh all known facts, speak to witnesses, separate truths from untruths, review media reporting, and understand legal implications of their actions or inactions. This determination can only be accomplished through a thorough analysis of available facts, and the potential benefits or pitfalls. If the crisis team decides that it is in their best interest to use a spokesperson, this person should be prepared with anticipated questions through mock question and answer scenarios. Some of these questions may include: 1) Isn't it true that the lifeguard was at a party drinking the night before? 2) It is our understanding that the facility was under staffed. 3) What was the quality of the lifeguard training? 4) Witnesses claim that the guards weren't paying attention. 5) It's our understanding the rescuing lifeguard was not wearing his prescription glasses; etc. This mock press conference training will help to ensure that your spokesperson has the ability and demeanor to handle difficult questions and remain positive.

Until now, we have discussed the science of crisis management; however, at times, crisis management becomes more art than science. The decision as to whether to initiate media relations or respond to the media can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. From both a common sense and legal viewpoint, it is ill-advisable to admit guilt, make admissions against interest, or otherwise be placed in a situation which may ultimately have an adverse effect on your agency. At times, chances must be taken.

Again, there is no steadfast rule of thumb as to when to cooperate with the media. Understandably, if you don't cooperate with the media they might speculate on causes or conditions, interview anyone who will talk, dig into your past problems, highlight the suffering you have caused, or imply you have something to hide. In such circumstances, "no comment" will be interpreted as pleading the Fifth Amendment.

If it is more likely that your agency committed a wrong, it would not be advisable to have a press conference or to voluntarily reach out to the media. Rather, the more prudent course of action would be to issue a written press release. For instance, let's presume that a child has drowned at the agency's pool and it appears through witnesses that the lifeguard on duty at the time of the incident abandoned his/her lifeguard station to make personal phone calls. Clearly, the prudent approach would be to minimize contact with the media. However, the agency could issue the following press release:

The Anytown Park District has been informed that early this afternoon at our pool facility a child drowned At this time, the specific facts and circumstances surrounding this event have neither been fully substantiated nor confirmed. We are currently in the process of investigating the matter in full cooperation with the Anytown Police Department. Pending the outcome of our investigation and in fairness to the families and parties involved, it is premature to discuss this matter at this time. We anticipate teeing able to provide further details in the near future.

In circumstances where the crisis is not objectively the result of any fault on the part of your agency, and agency emergency response efforts helped minimize or contain the crisis, the agency should be more willing to initiate contact through the media and designate a time and place for a press conference. The gray area exists where there may be two sides to the story, and the agency is faced with the dilemma of determining whether or not to balance the facts in response to negative or inaccurate news reporting or initiate contact with the media in an attempt to maximize the potential of the story being reported in a light most favorable to the agency.

This difficult situation would require conducting mock press conferences with the crisis team so that the agency can try to anticipate difficult questions and develop responses. In some cases, the services of an attorney expert in the legal aspects of the incident may be invaluable. If the agency is not entirely comfortable that its spokesperson can successfully address the most outlandish press questions, the agency may simply choose to release a written statement. Alternatively, the agency may wish to conduct a press conference with more than one spokesperson. A seasoned attorney may very well compliment the spokesperson.

This is particularly true in the areas of legal obligations or implications. However, it is best that the primary spokesperson's responsibilities be handled by an agency spokesperson, not its legal representative.

A decision should be made relatively soon after the incident as to whether or not it would be prudent to contact the media and suggest a press conference. The advantage of doing so is that by designating a specific time and place for the news conference, the media will be more likely to delay any news reporting until the news conference is held. This delay may minimize the need to respond to negative newscasting and maximize the potential that the news reporting of the event will be cast in a light most favorable to the agency. The caveat is that the agency spokesperson should be prepared to address convoluted, inaccurate or even absurd questions.

In the age of instant communication and voluminous litigation, the successful development and implementation of a crisis management plan is a powerful asset to any agency when the unthinkable aquatic incident occurs. Just as importantly, it will affect public reaction which will ultimately boil down to "they had no plan and people got hurt" or "they did a great job under very difficult circumstances."