|
NOTICE:
The International Emergency Management Society's Transportation Saftey and Security Workshop Janurary 28-29th 2003
|
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and
Risk Management
Crisis and Emergency Management
|
NOTICE: The ICDRM's monthly emergency managment forum, held at the GWU |
| December
2002
Volume 3 - Number 3 |
|
Links:
Current events
|
An Assessment of Communication by Public Officials
During the Sniper Shootings
Jeff Miller
For three weeks in October, the residents of Washington DC, Maryland and Northern Virginia were engrossed by the “Serial Sniper” killings. The sniper story was a constant fixture on the news: local, state and national. Law enforcement and other government officials effectively provided a medium and spokesman for passing information, although they were less effective in actually providing information that satisfied the demand. In response to the public and media demand for information, public officials responded with a host of daily press briefings. Montgomery County scheduled four briefings a day during the height of the crisis; other agencies briefed less frequently but regularly. As often as not, these briefings presented little new information and answered few questions. They did, however, show the public that the government was concerned with ongoing events and working on finding the sniper. These briefings provided police a chance to dispel rumor and reaffirm the few facts that there were. Perhaps most importantly, police and government’s ready willingness to make public statements and provide the little information they had to media provided a counter to the speculation and opinion that were in great supply. As the sniper crisis continued, Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose became the primary spokesman for all government and law enforcement. This personalized the government and gave people someone to relate to. Rather than a host of nameless officials speaking in clipped “government-ese”, Chief Moose was a memorable figure with human qualities. He made it clear that he was responsible for the police effort and that he was the ultimate point of information. At times emotional, he would deride the press and network “experts” over their attempts to publicize every shred of information they could find. Through Chief Moose, government and law enforcement were personified as someone painstakingly dedicated to ending the killing and bringing the sniper to justice. Although law enforcement was effective in how they addressed and public and in representing themselves through Chief Moose, they were less effective in what information they presented. When the press released information on notes found at shooting scenes, the police reaction was denial, outrage and then admittance. Just prior to apprehending the snipers, police were blatantly communicating to the sniper through the media, without explaining themselves. These actions were neither reassuring nor helpful to the public, and undercut the trust the police were trying to establish. Simple, non-detailed explanations could have kept the public feeling that they were being kept in the loop. The DC Sniper Crisis and reaction to it provide good and bad examples of the government communicating with the public and sharing information. In general, law enforcement gained public trust and confidence and satisfied media demands for information. Several specific incidents however, demonstrate areas where public affairs officers and law enforcement leaders can improve their efforts in future crisis. |