I recently saw an Instagram post from Immigration and Customs Enforcement touting that the content emanated from the most transparent administration in history. Well, I hate to rain on their parade, but this current administration is far from the most transparent in history. In fact, I’m still waiting for a reply to a request I sent to ICE months ago.
To be fair, it’s difficult to rate an administration’s overall transparency because there are so many agencies and moving parts, though the President could mandate a more transparent and responsive system. From my decades of field experience and investigative journalism I can pretty much tell if I’m being stonewalled or if the agency is simply not equipped to handle the request. I have had great experiences and rapport with the NTSB, DEA, FBI, and HSI, but with all the immigration-related enforcement happening in Southern California, I would have expected a more robust effort from DHS and ICE to work with the media, regardless of the outlet.
So, how would you define transparency, and do you engage in transparent actions? I know some will be triggered by this post but let me explain:
While presenting at a national conference I brought up the topic and someone blurted out, “We’re very transparent…my team sends out 4 social media posts a week.” Another participant added, “Me too…after any critical incident I immediately send out a press release with regular updates.” And another person chimed in, “We post regular videos from the chief talking about everything in our department, good and bad.”
Would you consider any of those statements an example of transparency? They are informative but are they transparent? Those who replied to my inquiry believe they had acted with transparency in mind. But I submit to you a different angle.
What some believe to be transparency is most likely what I call ‘selective transparency’ or ‘conditional transparency’. Yes, they’re revealing details of an incident or making a statement, but would those details be the final word? Is that all the media (public) will get? Will the agency ever allow questions from the media or reveal future details? Going back to my earlier example of an Instagram post from ICE – the agency touted its transparency by simply stating what it presents as the truth. That’s fine, but if the agency won’t allow itself to be scrutinized or questioned then can it be considered transparent? Transparency is a path to Accountability. The agency’s fear of bad press shouldn’t prevent them from being more accessible. And giving all your information to one or two reporters from the same outlet is not being transparent, it’s being selective, which could isolate a large portion of the public. It also creates distrust.
Let’s say I was sent a press release from an agency and just copied and pasted it online with my name on it – did I do my job as a journalist, or did I just use the agencies words as fact? I’m sorry to tell you but that’s akin to repurposing propaganda. In a perfect world, an agency’s first public statement, printed or verbal, should be the precursor to a future exchange between them and the media.
Let me stipulate that I understand some agencies don’t even have a dedicated PIO or media relations infrastructure, and I know staffing challenges affect all areas of an agency. And not all incidents require a comprehensive media relations strategy. But keep in mind that while any external communication can change the public’s perception of your agency (good and bad), silence and/or lack of transparency can be even more impactful. Fortunately, there are workarounds for these challenges.
“If you stick to the facts while preserving investigative elements and allow yourself to be questioned by the media then you, and your agency, are engaging in transparency. Pushing out details in a press release or social media post without the opportunity to question you about it is one-sided and erodes the trust and confidence of the public. ”
Veteran reporters understand what can and cannot be revealed during various stages of an investigation or incident. And if you and your agency are properly prepared to address the media then you should be comfortable engaging with reporters. I know, easier said than done. But think about it, allowing your agency to engage with the media as soon as possible shows your willingness to be transparent, to inform the public, and to show you have nothing to hide.
“But Steve, the media’s out to get me”
Yes, I have noticed a more aggressive approach from reporters at crime scenes and conferences, especially those dealing with scandalous or sensitive topics (some of this is intentional and some of it is lack of experience). I also see intentional bias from a lot of media outlets. One radio network has even created a Police Accountability Reporter. What do you think that entails? With all of that in mind your fear of being portrayed negatively in the media should not stop you from being transparent. If you stick to the facts while preserving investigative elements and allow yourself to be questioned by the media then you, and your agency, are engaging in transparency. Pushing out details in a press release or social media post without the opportunity to question you about it is one-sided and erodes the trust and confidence of the public. Remember, reporters are supposed to be an extension of the public, who ask questions the public wants to know the answers to.
Transparency leads to accountability which leads to a better relationship with the public.
Final Thoughts
There are ways to manage a hostile media and still be transparent. You can learn some of these techniques from me and other pros at TOC’s next PIO training class September 22-23 in Riverside hosted by the Riverside Police Department. Limited space available. Click here for details. If you’d like to do a deeper dive on all things media relations, social media, and crisis communications register now for TOC Con’s annual training conference in Coronado, CA November 17-19. To register click here.
