So far I am ¾ of my way through my placement here at FHHS.
Today I learnt an invaluable lesson from my supervisor. She briefed me on how
to deal with contentious issues when raised in parliament. Contentious issues
and the handling of them has not been touched hugely on in my studies at
Curtin, so I found the information invaluable. I am hoping to work in a similar
industry when I graduate, so for all I know in a year’s time I could be dealing
with a similar issue.
A contentious issue is often based around a controversial
topic. It is often a topic that people may fight over. Due to the industry of
my placement this could be based around confidentiality, patient information,
difference between public and private health systems or medical practice.
Due to confidentiality reasons and not being able to release
specific details, the lessons I have learnt will be broadly summarised as
followed:
- Generally the Opposition Leader will raise the issue in parliament. This leaves the General Leader caught off guard, especially if have not being informed by the Department of Health of the issue. The leaders assistant will then contact the Hospital directly requesting information. At this point as a PR Officer you need to do all that is in your power to fix the issue and fix it fast. In most instances this is drafting a response to the allegations.
- TIME
IS PRECIOUS. In some cases you have a matter of minutes to draft a
response. If a local newspaper has been tipped and is going to print
immediately on the story, you need to respond accordingly. In most instances the journalist has
written the story before contacting you (if on a tight deadline). A PR person’s
worst nightmare is the local papers blowing the issue out of proportion
and including a statement saying you had no response. This causes
community panic. Whether the allegation is true or not, it makes the community
think it is. Community members begin to doubt what other controversies
have they not been informed on. This brings doubt to the health service
and what is provides.
- Responses
are vital into creating a point of view the journalist writes by. It
enables you as a PR professional to angle the story as much in your favour
as possible. You can state in your response the facts, then followed by a
statement saying “In no circumstances were the initial claims true.” (If
viable of course). This dulls down the hype of the article, as the
journalist cannot report on confirmed incorrect information.
- Briefing notes are a key tool used by the Parliament Leader. Obviously the situation is not ideal when to leader is caught off guard in session. You must provide as much detail as possible. This is so the leader can report directly on the facts, leaving no details to the imagination of others. Parliament is not the media, and all facts can be supplied to them in as much detail necessary.
- LESS
IS MORE. When responding directly to an allegation the media has obtained,
it is best to keep your response to minimum detail. Back the claim up with
“legal jargon” if possible. Give them official reasoning to why you cannot
provide them all the information they are requesting. This way the
reporter understands you are not doing this to be difficult, but due to
being legally bound. It is not worth breaking a confidentiality agreement
purely to give the reporter the information they want.
When being briefed on this topic, I was overwhelmed with
information. I never knew that such a small issue could be blown so far out of
proportion, to the point where it is raised in Parliament. Whether it is true
or false, that has no relation to me as a Public Relations Professional. You
need to do the same amount of work, backing up the response to address the
claim. I look forward to my last few weeks here at FHHS, to then walk away with
a brain full of new knowledge.
