MPD PIO’s unintentional lesson for all communicators

I originally posted this on my blog boonesk.com. Go there to read more of my reflections on equity concerns for communicators.

Content advisory:?In response to the news that?John Elder has resigned?from being the Minneapolis Police Department's Public Information Officer, I am sharing this blog about the press release he published following the murder of George Floyd. I wish to acknowledge that I am using this release to make a broader point, and that is continuing the pattern of white people using the death and pain of Black people for our education and benefit. I normally use examples from my work when discussing equity concerns for communicators. However, I felt a need to share this analysis as a communicator living in Minneapolis.

To be clear: George Floyd should be alive today, and the conviction of Derek Chauvin does not absolve me and other white Minnesotans from needing to understand that "Minnesota Nice" is?racism with a smile. Additionally, while this blog focuses on Elder, it both IS and IS NOT about the actions of a specific PIO. In addition to the lessons all white Americans should learn, communicators should reflect on this experience as an opportunity to consider the ways we move too fast in our profession. We must question whether we take enough responsibility for the words and narratives we put into the world.

P.S. If you want to know more about this press release, you can review a case study I did for class.

Shortly after midnight on May 30, 2020, the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD)?issued a press release?sstating a “suspect” had died after experiencing “medical distress” during a “police interaction.” Unbeknownst to John Elder, the Minneapolis Police Department’s (MPD) Public Information Officer (PIO) who sent the press release,?Darnella Frazier?had live-streamed the entire interaction. That footage clearly showed that the “medical distress” was caused by MPD Police Officer Derek Chauvin using his knee to pin “the suspect” (later identified as George Floyd) to the ground by his neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds despite pleas from Floyd and onlookers stating he could not breathe.

Many have discussed the ways police departments use (and journalists repeat) passive voice and other confusing terminology in public communication to confuse and avoid blame, and some activists question if PIOs purposely lie in this and other cases of in-custody deaths and police shootings. Elder defended his actions by saying he was simply reporting the information that had been shared with him at that time.

As a strategic communication and public relations professional, I know it is tempting to minimize this press release as the actions of a single PIO who was either moving too quickly or working with incomplete/evolving information. I know the demand for speed has evolved to create an expectation for instant communication, and this has resulted in many instances where organizations communicate first and fix mistakes later.

However, when I read the release with a critical eye, I was struck that it is possible to defend the text as true. In fact, as I read the words while thinking of my work experience, I began to remember times I’ve rejected criticism by saying things like “I was just sharing what happened” or “How was I supposed to know I was told something wrong?”

All communications professionals need to reread the MPD’s press release and consider what it says about our profession. Too often, conversations about our ethical responsibilities end in our field with the simple idea of “DO NOT LIE.” We are told that lying will be the fastest way to lose credibility, but the MPD’s press release shows that it is very possible to not lie—but also not tell the complete truth.

This press release shows why we must challenge ourselves to think more critically about the power and responsibilities we hold as gatekeepers of information and storytellers for our organizations. We must consider how our organization-first thinking makes it easier to justify only telling our organization's preferred narrative and repeating dog whistles and salacious content. I don’t believe this is a decision many make consciously, but this experience highlights the importance of building pause points and feedback channels into your regular operations.

As communicators, we must question how we treat the people whose names, experiences, and photos we use in our materials. And, we must pause when feeling the urge to rush to be the first to put out a statement so we can, instead, ask if our organization’s actions fulfill the values we wish to claim. If that answer is no, we must be willing to tell our organizational leaders that it will be better to bring attention to other voices or not speak.

Rather than pushing off the MPD’s press release as an example of PR done wrong, if we wish to be truly responsible professionals, we must be willing to understand that we are human beings born and raised in a white supremacist culture and working in a profession that prioritizes speed and certainty over reflection and questions. Furthermore, we must accept that we work within organizations and institutions that continue to depend on and support that culture’s survival. This means it is baked into our basic systems and thinking in ways that aren't questioned.

We must take time to find ways to identify when we are making decisions based on our positionality, privilege, and/or power (referred to as the 3Ps), and we must push ourselves harder in our understanding of what it means that (as stated in the PRSA Code of Ethics) “the level of public trust PRSA members seek, as we serve the public good, means we have taken on a special obligation to operate ethically” (emphasis added).