TO COMMENT OR NOT TO COMMENT, THAT'S THE QUESTION

In public relations the journalist and the PR practitioner both need each other to do their jobs effectively. The PR person needs the media to gain exposure for the company while the journalist views the PR person as a news source . How does the PR person handle sensitive or pertinent issues asked by journalists?

Silence and 'no comment' are some of the responses that have been made in light of media inquiries. Such responses negatively affect media relations which should be based on mutual respect and trust. Deflecting questions from the media will not kill a negative story or make the crisis disappear. Journalists will not stop pursuing a story because the organisation has refused to comment. This fuels speculation and the public will immediately think the organisation has something to hide and therefore guilty. The best approach is to positively respond so that the organisation's story is heard from the company instead of from other sources which might present the company negatively.

The 'no comment' response by the Headmistress of Eveline High School over a front page Sunday News story where she is alleged to have stripped and canned some A-Level students left her and the school open to suspicion. Her response was viewed as some sort of admission of guilt and that she had something to hide.

One may ask 'could she have handled it better?'
Yes she could. If her employment terms do not allow her to talk to the media, she could have explained this courteously and then referred the reporter to the Provincial Education officer who has authority to talk to the media. However, her silence and negative attitude have affected public perception of her as a leader and the school as well. She came out as an arrogant person who had a lot to hide.

It is therefore, important to note that when dealing with the media silence and 'no comment' do not necessarily mean that one is not communicating. Infact the reverse is true and has adverse effects.

THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX

Government institutions at the moment are currently cash strapped as they are not receiving adequate voted funds to maintain their infrastructure and continue their everyday operations. This has resulted in the dilapidated state that characterises most institutions. Even now the government has not yet raised enough funds to repair the damaged infrastructure. It is therefore up to the institutions to see what they can do to profitably and sustainably support themselves.

For years UCE has appealed to relevant authorities to secure vehicles for the college but nothing has been forthcoming. However, the college decided to take it upon itself to do something positive and began hiring out its facilities for church conferences, weddings, as well as for ZIMSEC marking sessions.

From funds raised from these activities, the institution has bought a brand new double cab vehicle for the principal, a single cab truck will be bought by the end of the month, a new deep freezer was bought for the kitchen as well as five computers and seven printers. This is a big achievement for the college considering that all this was done in ten months.

This goes to show that government institutions can do tangible and positive things without necessarily waiting for handouts from government.

IMAGE AND REPUTATION ; SHOULD PARASTATALS CARE?

Image and reputation are critical to any organisation if it is to meaningfully carry out its operations and achieve its goals.
ZIMSEC, Zimbabwe's school examination board is a case point. The organisation has been dogged by crisis after crisis. One can say this is a result of failing to focus on the concerns of its publics and fostering good reputation by delivering what is espoused in its mission statement. Most people no longer want to be asssociated with Zimsec because of examination leakage scandals, candidates getting results for exams they would not have sat for, missing results, delays in releasing results and poor labour relations characterised by strikes by exam markers as well as full time employees.
So what does it mean for ZIMSEC? The organisation has lost all credibility, it is now perceived negatively, nobody wants to be associated with it. Its certificates are no longer recognised internationally. Candidates now opt for the Cambridge exam inspite of it being expensive. ZIMSEC needs restore the lost trust through renewing its commitment to quality and actively seeking from publics and being responsive to their concerns.
The organisation's PR department has work overtime to come up with a meaningful campaign, not just a cosmetic one, aimed at regaining the trust of the various publics. Effective public relations that tells the company's story in an honest and accurate way,is what is needed to establish a reputation for credibility. It will also need to play the role of advocate within the organisation i.e. bringing public perspective to the organisation. In that way the organisation's ability to respond to public concerns will be fostered. Failure to do so will ceratainly threaten the survival of ZIMSEC.