To wonder why Huw Edwards is being treated a lot more sympathetically than Phillip Schofield was ?

[Barnybrown]

That’s it really - the tone of the media coverage re Huw seems much more sympathetic than the coverage Phillip received and discussion generally just seems much more sympathetic of Huw than Phillip, I can’t quite understand why?

You...you do realise that public statements made in a reputational crisis situation are usually statements of fact, don't you?

As a retired practitioner, I would always advise my clients that telling the truth and being transparent is vital in a reputational crisis situation.

That doesn't mean a 'warts and all' confession - indeed my clients were often constrained from giving too much information in initial public statements due either to a rapidly developing situation, or to legal constraints (prejudicial). But Iwould always advise them to state facts. And work with them and their legal team to craft a statement that worked.

I've never met a PR practitioner who would advise stating outright lies.

I very much dislike the suggestion that anyone is 'playing the mental health card' when they are in a crisis which would cause anyone to be extremely stressed.

However I don't think saying that HE and his family got in a crisis PR to advise them means they were playing the mental health card - they were just getting advice on how to manage growing speculation and pressure and usually a PR would advise telling as close to the truth as possible (without going into the allegations that are being investigated). From that perspective I think HE's was handled better albeit after a few days - to stop the festering rumour and debate rather PS's situation.

I've know a couple of people in the political affected by such media situations and the PRs involved in reputation management would usually advise the same - to try to manage the story rather than ignore it and hope it goes away.

I didn’t realise PS didn’t take advice

HE seems to have not made the same mistake and has used someone very adept

It will be a big factor in what’s said next generally by public

Coulson's been brilliant. In the first 48 hours he got that statement out, put The Sun back in its box and completely changed the narrative to the extent that the lovely Victoria Derbyshire is now media public enemy number one.

It's a really good example of why, when a crisis hits, do not hunker down and try to ride it out in silence. This is what HE and family hoped to do but in the age of social media it's just not possible.

Coulson is a master at this stuff; I appreciate this will sound nerdy but it has been a pleasure to watch, like watching a particularly technically skilled soloist and the Royal Ballet.

Indeed. Thank you. My only criticism is that HE did on Wednesday what he should have done the previous Sunday.

Right...

That isn't quite the same as you implying that the statement made by Huw Edwards wife about his mental health was a PR move though is it?

And pointing out it's suggested that Andy Coulson who was imprisoned for his journalistic activities- hmm, are you suggesting he's a legitimate advisor or something else?

If you're saying then yes, it's a statement of fact that he's currently mentally ill then don't imply that it's crisis PR by a previously imprisoned journo because what most people will interpret that is : excuses.

Frankly, if you're not involved in this case you have no reason to comment as an ex-expert or current 'expert' and should know better if you are/were a professional.

You're like the river 'expert' in the Nicola Bulley case but online and not actually asked to comment but creating enough 'professional' opinion that adds to the online drama and speculation.

"don't imply that it's crisis PR by a previously imprisoned journo" - you mean...don't state a fact and then give my opinion on it?

Why are YOU implying that there's something wrong or shady about crisis PR? As if people haven't been doing crisis PR since Varus lost his legions? LOL.

You're not the boss of this thread. I'll comment as I please. If the mods are OK with it, then it'll stay. If it upsets you, I'd suggest you ignore my posts, or pop me on ignore, if Mumsnet has that function.

They’re just talking from a position of knowing a bit more about PR management

I’m not getting your reaction

Some are skilled at it, and the pp could see that

Why did you mention Coulson’s imprisonment? Why is it relevant?

Those dismissing PR management are unlikely to require it at any point but those who end up in media and SM crises would be really unwise not to hire someone good

The difference is pretty big

I thought that would be what he was most known for to the average non-media nerd. Also useful context, in that there isn't much he won't know about the current law and regulatory expectations around privacy.

His time at NoTW would also have been useful, because he knows tabloid culture intimately. His time as David Cameron's adviser would have been useful also in terms of how to approach dealing with the unwieldly behemoth that is the BBC.

Why should his time inside be hidden? Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with having served a prison sentence?

Believe me there are some very prominent journos turned pundits who should have done time over that, but didn't. Some (not me) would even argue that Coulson was something of a sacrificial lamb.

Agreed. Coulson will be costing ££££ but the very fact that the situation is so much more controlled now than it was 5 days ago makes it worth every penny.

That’s incredibly disingenuous. And, as a former PR professional of over 30 years experience I can see straight through you. Your mention of Coulson’s “bird” was purely and simply to discredit him and by association Huw Edwards. For “non media nerds” you could have said former Director of Comms to Cameron or former NoTW editor.

Of course there’s something wrong with serving a prison sentence- are you for real? Particularly for the reason he did.

If you think having paid his debt to society discredits Andy Coulson’s current work, and his ability to do a good job, then your beef should be with Huw Edwards for appointing him. Not with me.

Why would airbrushing an important part of recent media history be disingenuous. It’s an interesting part of Coulson’s story. His experience of it is also potentially relevant to the work he’s doing for Edwards, since it may well have some tangential connection to The Sun’s method of standing up its original story (ie what documents did they see, and should the parents have been able to access them. As a PR professional you’ve no doubt discussed this aspect in detail with friends and former colleagues, as have I).

I’m not responding to you anymore. You’re contorting yourself so much you’re going to pull something.

You’re contorting yourself so much you’re going to pull something.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Tbf I know very little about the guy but if HE wants to appoint someone good at their job it sounds like they picked the right person

Some are excellent at it, nothing wrong with recognising that, even though the public usually don’t see behind the scenes

Coulson didn't put The Sun back in their box.

The Sun claimed a TV presenter had committed child sexual offences.

They had no evidence to support that and the alleged 'victim' had contacted them telling them there was 'no truth' to the article they were about to publish.

The Sun went ahead and published.

After being ignored, the alleged 'victim' employed lawyers to publicly state their position.

After a week of desperately trying to come up with some dirt on the TV presenter, The Sun came up with very little so backed off.

Andy Coulson had nothing to do with the public perception of how this entire case has been perceived.

Anyone with any sense can see The Sun f-up and that's has zero to do with Andy Coulson.

And zero evidence till now that he's using some kind of amazing PR.

IF Andy Coulson is involved in PR for Huw Edwards there's nothing so far that could be considered to be 'spin'.

I doubt Coulson had anything to do with that statement anyway. It looked like a draft by a lawyer to me. And any PR worth their salt would have recommended that.

Not really. When it's a statement of fact and implying it's designed to be PR. While stating the person who may have helped compose the statement is a convicted journo.

Don't know about you but when someone references a convicted person as an advisor, I don't think they're suggesting that statement is valid?

Or..are they suggesting it shouldn't be taken as fact and therefore should not be believed?

Gasp...

You probably need to adjust to social media these days and how to deal with it.

A crises and media storm takes someone who is particularly good at that

I can’t see why PR management wouldn’t work together with the lawyers anyway, a consistent story that passes legal requirements

The statement is the key part of what’s put out, I don’t see why the expert you’ve hired for loads of money would not be involved

Care it didn’t read that way to me, if HE hires him that’s his choice, it doesn’t change much about the person advising and whether it’s good advice

When it comes to public opinion, what the papers report is much more important than what the truth is.

The papers have been referring to the victims using gender neutral terms for HE

CareBearFlair I think you're missing what PR is. You seem to making the assumption that PR is de facto untrue. Okay that was how Max Clifford operated but for the most part PR advice is about how to manage down media interest and minimise damage to reputation - and often people turn to former media editors to advise how to do so.

It's a bit of a red herring that HE may have turned to a news editor for advice who had previously been convicted (which I can't verify). The relevance will be his inside knowledge of the tactics of the tabloid media not his knowing his way around Wormwood Scrubs. Clearly the advice has worked well as this thread attests compared with PS's recent coverage.

There are many PR agencies that will help as well as lawyers who will consider legal means like injunctions, desist letters and warnings about libel action to manage a crisis. No doubt HE's family will be considering such advice now although they may be waiting to see the outcome of the BBC investigation which could result in HE bring sacked for gross misconduct or otherwise even if the law wasn't broken.

Reputation management is a function of most organisations today - from the police and public services, from major oil companies and corporates, to public services and charities, politicians and celebrities. And as has been explained many times on this thread most good PR advisors brought in to help an individual or an organisation manage a media firestorm would advise being as honest as possible. Issuing lies or evasion will only prolong the agony of the crisis.