What kind of a human being responds to a tragedy with statistics designed to convince others that "we really don't kill people that often"?
John Wagner in On Message blogs about how we often worry more about our image than about the people involved in a crisis, especially when a death is involved. The callousness demonstrated when the message contains talking points that demonstrate a company's good image only ring hollow when heard by caring individuals.
Besides, to the families involved -- and the general public -- those stats are meaningless. People see right through that corporatespeak.
It seems the lawyers always want to minimize and distance rather than admit fault. That is the nature of the law; find a way to reduce the liability. PR professionals often fall into this trap too by thinking that the safe path will improve their client/agencies image because they are providing distance between the client and the conflict/problem.
A recent civil case in my court resulted in a large settlement, even as the jury was considering a verdict. The lawyers concluded that they should cut to the chase as it was apparent the jury was leaning in favor of the plaintiff. And the settlement turned out to be a fraction of jury's dismissed verdict. So the lawyers won.
However, it turns out the plaintiff really only wanted an apology and an acknowledgement that he had been wronged. Sure, that is what court is for - a place for redress -however, in the forum of public opinion, a lot could have been done by providing more human relations and less distancing from the problem. The image of the defendant took a hit either way. While they walked away from the publicity of a sizeable jury verdict, they still came across as uncaring.
By treating people with respect we further the qualities of the profession and allow individuals to feel like they have been treated with care and concern. We might even improve our image in the process.