INTERVIEW SERIES: The Transformation of Public Relations in the Digital Age INTERVIEWER: Gökhan Çolak | INTERVIEWEE: Timothy Coombs

Crisis Responsibility in the Digital Age

How has the concept of crisis responsibility changed in an era where public perception often forms before facts are verified?

The idea of a rush to judgment is a problem for organizations. The digital environment provides a platform and amplifier for other voices. Those other voices can shape perceptions of crisis responsibility. This becomes a problems when those voices are misinformed or simply being malicious. Incorrect information is difficult to correct. A strong, positive reputation can be a buffer as people give the organization the benefit of the doubt and withhold judgment until hearing from the organization. It can be more challenging to create a clear picture of crisis responsibility if loud voices are providing inaccurate information.

Social Media and the Loss of Narrative Control

Have digital platforms weakened organizational control over crisis narratives, or merely transformed the nature of communicative authority?

It has always been difficult or even impossible to control the crisis narrative. The media always had its voice that shaped the narratives. Moreover, various groups can try to shape those narratives. Social media increase the number of crisis voices that shape the ways people interpret a crisis. This can mean there are competing crisis narratives at times. Managers must be aware of the various narratives because they can affect their crisis messaging and how people interpret those messages. Sentiment analysis can aid in identify the various voices and help to understand the various crisis narratives that emerge. There are times powerful crisis narratives emerge in the digital world and managers must accept the need to work within those narrative rather than trying to fight them. Examples are when customers maintain there is ap problem with a product and eventually the produce is recalled as part of a product harm crisis.

Rethinking SCCT in the Algorithmic Era

If Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) were developed today, what aspects would need to be reconsidered in light of AI and algorithm-driven communication systems?

The theory itself would remain largely the same, what changes is how crisis are how crisis actions can be facilitated by AI—AI aiding crisis managers. The theory has actually be used to create predictive AI for the effects of crisis response strategies. The core of SCCT is cognitive and AI had not altered the cognitions process around crisis responsibility. Nor has it changed the what people react to the various crisis response strategies. What has changed is the increased appearance of misinformation generated by AI but that is more of a change in the risk environment faced by managers.

Crisis Communication as Moral Performance

Do organizations today face expectations not only to communicate effectively, but also to demonstrate morality, empathy, and social consciousness during crises?

There has long been a need for organizations to be empathetic in responding to a crisis and today’s digital environment makes failures to so more obvious. So there are greater pressures do to the increased visibility of crisis communication. Morality concerns are increases because organizations are experience more crises that appear to have a moral component to them—those that generate moral outrage. There had been a great expectation of social consciousness with the rise of corporate social responsibility. But CSR has been suppressed over the past few years do to the polarization in many societies making social consciousness less of a concern during a crisis. I would argue the need to ethical and empathetic are more important the being perceived as socially conscious during a crisis.However, the need to be socially conscious matters if the crisis exposes the organization as socially irresponsible.

Trust, Distrust, and Hyperconnectivity

Why do contemporary societies appear simultaneously hyperconnected and deeply distrustful?

Polarization is important to the rise of distrust. Groups in society no longer share common values and sources of information. Societies are fragmented and people trust their group but distrusts others. This fosters a general sense of distrust. Also the news media and politicians have added to the distrust through their partisan actions that help to fuel polarization.

Artificial Intelligence and Human Judgment

Can AI meaningfully interpret emotional nuance and ethical complexity during crises, or are these fundamentally human capacities?

Emotions yes but nuance no. Nor is AI very useful for ethical complexity. AI depends upon patterns and training to use patterns. Emotions and ethics often do not fit patterns or generate new patterns. Humans are needed to understand these complex situations. AI can supply data humans use to interpret the situation by identifying patterns but we should not depend upon AI make some interpretations. People need to interpret the data and to evaluate if a pattern is meaningful. Also, AI should not be used to make decisions. All decisions require human to be in the loop to some degree.

Deepfakes, Misinformation, and the Crisis of Truth

How should crisis communication evolve in an era where synthetic media and misinformation increasingly shape public reality?

Crisis managers must be aware of the dangers of misinformation and factor this in crisis training and risk assessments. Managers must be ready for the paracrises and crises misinformation can create. Overlooking the variety of ways misinformation can be created will erode an organization’s crisis management readiness and effectiveness.

Transparency and “Stealing Thunder” Strategies

In today’s culture of virality and outrage, is proactive transparency still strategically effective, or can openness itself intensify reputational crises?

Stealing thunder still works, it is a very robust crisis response strategy.Stealing thunder becomes more difficult because information can break before managers decide to reveal it. By its nature, stealing thunder will intensify a crisis, managers are admitting a crisis exists. However, the organization will suffer less reputational damage and recover more quickly by stealing thunder.

The Ethical Future of Predictive Communication

Does AI-driven predictive communication risk transforming public relations into a form of behavioral surveillance?

That is a fascinating question. Given the emphasis of scanning and monitoring, that can be interpreted as surveillance. The digital environment makes it easier to surveil stakeholders because stakeholders are willingly providing all types of information. AI makes it easier to extract useful information from this big data. We can surveil behaviors, behavioral intentions, and emotions now because people choose to make that information publicly available. There are ethical concerns about how that data is used but less so about collecting it.

The Future of Crisis Communication

Do you believe the future of crisis communication will remain primarily strategic, or is it becoming increasingly philosophical—centered on truth, legitimacy, and human trust?

I would say it remains strategic in that it helps managers to navigate when existing strategy has been disrupted by the crisis. Being effective with strategic communication is not possible without a base of trust and legitimacy. Having a track record for being truthful is what builds trust and legitimacy. Strategic communication is goal-oriented but need not be deceptive or manipulative. The best strategic communication avoids the deception and manipulation many people attribute to persuasion. Unethical strategic communication does not succeed for long and will damage the very relationships required for organizations to survive.