The Cincinnati Zoo director in the Harambe killing case defended the zoo’s safety saying it regularly meets federal safety standards. This later was found to be untrue. It was discovered that a USDA investigation revealed that the zoo hadn't updated the barrier since it was erected in 1978. Why is this a potential problem for the PR practitioner/counselor?
What will be an ideal response?
The public may decide that meeting federal standards may still not be adequate for
protecting people. They may still blame the zoo. Further, if the standards are lax, then
defending your actions by saying you meet lax standards is meaningless. Finally, it is
possible that the zoo director might have known that the barrier was out of compliance
and lied about it to the news media, or the director was unaware of the barrier being out
of compliance, neither if which position is goof. In either case, defending it would seem
a serious error.
Taking such a position erodes the credibility of the spokesperson and ultimately the
institution. A thread to credibility can be a serious problem for a PR practitioner
representing that client.
You might also like to view...
The primary influence(s) on a person's gender is that person's:
a. identity b. sex c. family d. school e. culture
An individual can belong to only one non-dominant culture.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Letting the other person know what you want and
need, as well as finding out what the other person wants and needs is given as a recommendation during which stage of the PUGSS model? A. Describe the problem B. Achieve understanding C. Identify goals D. Brainstorm solutions
Which of the following theories suggests that people tend to display the same emotions that a
communication partner is displaying? A) expression mimic theory B) facial reaction theory C) reflection theory D) emotional contagion theory