Speed has become a form of currency in the fast-paced realm of digital journalism and public communication. Being the first to report a story is often a triumph for news organisations. Similarly, a swift response is seen as a proactive measure for public relations professionals. However, during disasters — when lives are at risk, communities are mourning, and facts are still being uncovered — the urgency to be first can come at a severe price: the truth.
The recent Ahmedabad plane incident involving Air India flight AI171 is a prime example. This distressing event set off a flurry of speculation, misinformation, and amateur theorising across various platforms, with contributions from misinformed social media users, communication professionals, and seasoned journalists.
The Race to Report
The digital rumour mill surged just minutes after reports confirmed the emergency landing and multiple casualties. Some posts on X (formerly Twitter) asserted that the aircraft was “visibly in poor condition,” citing unverified passenger accounts. WhatsApp forwards speculated about engine failure and pilot error. Meanwhile, certain regional news outlets, eager to be “first on the story,” disseminated unverified reports claiming that the aircraft had “skipped maintenance checks” or was “nearing the end of its operational life.”
All this transpired while the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and other authorities had not initiated their preliminary investigations.
Such reactive, assumption-driven coverage does more harm than good. In moments when accurate information is crucial, conjecture becomes damaging. It breeds distrust, exacerbates public anxiety, and unjustly targets individuals or institutions before the truth can be established.
Journalism’s Fundamental Principle: Do No Harm
The tenet of “do no harm” is paramount in the medical field. Similarly, a comparable standard must be upheld in journalism and public relations, especially in times of crisis. Regrettably, we have reached a point where storytelling often prioritises drama over diligence. A story’s value is gauged by its potential virality rather than its accuracy or utility to the public.
It is essential to understand that communication professionals — journalists and PR practitioners alike — play a vital role in the aftermath of disasters. We bridge the gap between institutions and the public by providing information, context, and clarification. However, this responsibility cannot be fulfilled if our primary focus is garnering clicks or retweets.
The Emergence of ‘Theory Journalism’
What we witnessed following the Ahmedabad incident is not an isolated occurrence. Other tragedies, such as the Odisha train derailment in 2023 and the Morbi bridge collapse in Gujarat in 2022, were also met with similar instances of what can best be termed “theory journalism.” This approach to reporting bypasses the need for data, opting instead for speculation, loosely attributed quotes, and sensational headlines.
Some examples include:
- “Negligence by signal staff likely caused the Odisha crash” — made before the railway inquiry had commenced.
- “Design flaws ignored in Morbi bridge renovation” — based on a single unnamed ‘expert.’
- “Engine malfunction likely in AI171” — reported mere hours after the Ahmedabad incident, lacking official confirmation.
In these cases, coverage was propelled by anticipation rather than affirmation. These narratives may later prove accurate, but presenting them as facts prematurely is irresponsible.
The Role of PR Professionals
The responsibility does not rest solely with the media; public relations professionals also must resist the temptation to shape the narrative with hasty messaging. In crises, especially those involving government entities or large corporations, there is often pressure to issue statements quickly to manage public perception. However, this rush can lead to downplaying serious issues or distorting facts without a clear understanding.
A savvy communicator recognises that silence is not a sign of weakness in times of crisis—but reckless speech is.
A carefully worded holding statement that acknowledges the situation expresses concern for those affected, and promises updates as facts emerge is frequently the most suitable initial action. Further details should only follow once verified by the appropriate authorities.
Social Media: Amplifier of Misinformation
While traditional media can act as gatekeepers, social media presents a different landscape. Everyone can simultaneously become a reporter, analyst, and aviation expert. During the AI171 incident, a viral post analysed the plane’s maintenance history using open-source data, labelling it “a disaster waiting to happen.” This post amassed tens of thousands of views — long before any aviation expert or regulator had offered input.
The issue? Even if corrected later, the initial impression remains. It lingers in the public consciousness and can sometimes influence formal inquiries and political responses, exerting undue pressure on authorities to align with an unfounded narrative.
Defining Responsible Coverage
What should responsible communication entail during a disaster?
- Verify Before You Publish: Regardless of a source’s perceived credibility, facts must undergo rigorous cross-checking. “Sources say” is not a justification for skirting due diligence.
- Steer Clear of Sensationalism: Replace alarming phrases like “horror mid-air!” with more measured descriptions such as “emergency landing under investigation.” Emotive language should be reserved for opinion pieces and human-interest stories — not breaking news.
- Use Disclaimers Liberally: If disseminating early information, clearly mark it as “unverified” or “awaiting official confirmation.”
- Focus on Those Affected: Coverage must always be sensitive to the trauma experienced by survivors and the dignity of those who have passed. Reporting should not exacerbate their suffering.
- Delay Analysis: Expert commentary should be sought after the basic facts are established. Speculative “what could have gone wrong” articles within the first 24 hours lack utility.
- Communicate with Empathy: The tone is vital whether issuing a press statement or composing a tweet. Empathy is crucial in building public trust.
The Long-Term Reputational Risk
Inaccuracies during crises can have long-lasting consequences for brands and media organisations. A wrong assertion, even if later corrected, erodes public trust and fuels growing skepticism about the integrity of media and institutions.
For PR professionals, providing misleading information or withholding details can irreparably damage client trust and stakeholder relationships.
Conclusion: The Truth Is Not a Competition
As communication professionals, we often believe that we are in a competitive race to publish, respond, and trend. Yet, in times of disaster, truth is not a contest. It is a process.
We must remind ourselves that the best stories are those written accurately, not necessarily first. They require time, verification, and thoughtful perspective. They provide solace to those affected, inform the public, and hold the powerful accountable while avoiding adding fuel to the fires of chaos.
In an era of incessant “breaking news,” practising restraint is not merely rare — it is revolutionary. Let us, as communicators, prioritise accuracy over haste. Ultimately, facts will always hold more importance than speed.
The views and opinions published here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the publisher.
Be the first to comment on "Why Accuracy Matters More Than Hype in Crisis Communication"