When to respond – Hillary and hijacking the news

As an obsessive political junkie, the weeks since the Republican National Convention (RNC) have been nothing short of stunning. I’ve been glued to the news, rubbernecking all of the unhinged statements and general lunacy that has poured forth from the Trump campaign. Particular highlights have included his refusal to endorse Speaker Paul Ryan, feuding with parents of deceased war hero Humayun Khan and threatening to withdraw from both NATO and the WTO. He has even insinuated Hillary Clinton could be assassinated for appointing anti-second amendment judges. One aspect of the Trump meltdown which, I’ve found interesting and has gone relatively unnoticed, has been the general lack of response from the Clinton camp. Hillary seems to be quite content to watch her opponent continue to spout without firing back heavily and is responding only selectively.

There are plenty of times in PR when hijacking a story is a great way to push your own message out, and Hillary’s reticence got me thinking about the whens and hows of hijacking a news story.

Add to the story

Firstly, although it might seem obvious, the only reason to respond to breaking news is when there is something to add to the story. When news comes out about some major data breach or hacking attack, journalists need experts who can discuss the story at hand. Therefore, it’s vital for any spokesperson to have both strong technical knowledge but also a firm handle on the particular issue before commenting.

While news hijacking can be a great tool to push core messages, going too heavily is not a good idea. When data breaches like Sony and Ashley Madison occur, of course, it makes sense to speak about the need for stronger cyber-security measures, but it has to be linked to the specifics of the case – how these specific victims are likely to be affected and what defences were in place in each instance. The more relevant the comments are, the better.

Less can be more

Hillary isn’t going to be able to counter every insanity from her opponent – there just isn’t time. As one Clinton staffer said: “[Trump] can set himself on fire at breakfast; kill a nun at lunch and water board a puppy in the afternoon. And that doesn't even get us to prime time.” So she is being selective about which ones she responds to. It’s the same with tech companies. There is a front page every day, but it’s not possible to have a voice every time. Pick the most relevant and highest profile cases, ones where your voice is going to be heard. But going to the media every other day with comments on each story is a sure-fire way to get tuned out. More isn’t necessarily better.

Lack of speed kills

Finally, any effective news hijack needs to be quick. When it comes to Trump, the machine gun-rate at which he spews out conspiracy theories or offensive comments means that today’s news is forgotten by tomorrow. There is no point is speaking out on a story which broke a week ago – in the digital age, it might as well have happened in 1992.

So when the right opportunity comes up, respond as quickly as possible. If even an hour goes by, half the publications may have covered the story. And get ready because, unfortunately just like The Donald suggesting yet another bonkers theory, there is always going to be another story tomorrow.