“Banning” Sounds Sexy and Powerful, But It Rarely Works…

This past week we saw the White House ‘ban” several news outlets from doing their jobs, for reasons ranging from petty silliness and power plays to “National Security.” While it is still a bit of a question as to whether those at the top will let outlets…like CNN…back in for the long term despite a court order to do so, what is not that much in question is what does such a “ban” actually do in an era of multimedia opportunities, the use of third party sources liberally social posts and even “citizen journalism.”

One thing I do believe is that full on “bans,” especially of an organization vs an individual don’t work, and those who are leading communications teams having to both placate irate leadership members and others looking to swing a destructive hammer just for impact, have a lot to balance. However, that is part of the job, and having a senior leader on the communications side who can find a balance, get messages across and police the correct way to grant access and build bridges is more important than ever.

I come at this topic from firsthand experience, where at least seven times I have been “in the room” with owners, teams, leagues, athletes, celebrities and their various support teams where “banning” was discussed.  In many cases, a suspension or a ban was warranted. We have seen everything from circumventing rules protecting privacy, to publishing doctored photos, to inaccurate information being shared without being sources, to even the selling or sharing of credentials, or using credentials to gain access to places or to get “Free stuff,” and there should be zero tolerance and fair communication when such things happen. That’s also why you have press organizations that can fairly and accurately represent a constituency in the case of a grievance, and hopefully they can also self-police and self-report for the overall health of the relationship.

Often times, leadership, once the emotions are on the low boil, enjoy being heard, and in many cases, learn from the PERSONAL experience and intervention of seasoned professionals, and a medium, sometimes happy, sometimes not, can be sought without going full ban on an organization.

Now there are cases of an individual who may have an agenda or a point of view that he/she/they just can’t over, despite the efforts of trying to bring people together. Agree to disagree does happen, and in a click based business, the buzzy titles, the controversy, the unnamed sources, still find a way to drive an agenda put forth. That is not easy to deal with, but it doesn’t mean always an organization is “Banned.”

What was more troubling about the White House decision is the impact it can have on others looking for an excuse to blame “media” for an issue they are facing. This past week, I had discussions with at least three Universities, PR folks at a few teams and leagues and some who represent athletes and high impact individuals, because the question came up.

If the President can ban, why shouldn’t we be doing the same?

Recently we have seen a number of cases, many of which, when the noise of a “ban” played out, a solution was found. They included:

TCU pulling the media credentials of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram after the newspaper reported on an aggravated assault in the football locker room, citing safety and victim privacy concerns.

The Titans banned podcaster Jared Stillman from the team facility following a public back-and-forth exchange with quarterback Cam Ward.

Now I’m not in the room where decisions are made, and sometimes those making the decisions on who gets in and out get pushed to the boiling point where no solution is possible, but more often than not the message of a “ban” publicly is a form of exerting power not just to the person or organization impacted, but to all who hold a credential. Is it needed? Many times the behind the scenes work to get things done without challenging publicly works a lot better.

Alo let’s not forget that this is all about access and content, and in a world where self-storytelling is a growing opportunity to reach a key audience, granting additional access outside of the main stage is usually an even better way to assist those doing the work vs some who may be circumventing the rules.

The use of access…deeper access…breaking access…a head’s up when something is coming down…is a commodity that is precious, and many times sends an even bigger message than screaming YOU ARE BANNED to the world.

Maybe it makes those at the podium feel better to scream, but is the juice really worth the squeeze?

There is also the challenge of editorial vs advertorial that sometimes gets lost in the internal communications process. You want to convey your message to an audience and have complete control? First say less. Second, self-publish or pay for the space.  While it’s not the way to reach the widest audience, you do have the ability to share only your message unencumbered.

It may work in some instances, but the ability for others to amplify, reach their audience that may not be yours, and carry news and content to the ends of the world can’t happen in a censored vacuum usually.

Now the challenges of those in the limelight is not new. One question we pose in class is a quote about the issue of “media” from a President not named Trump, and his desire to ban “media”  when his POV is delivered.

It was James Madison.

The media are still granted access, and are still in a healthy debate for most cases, over 200 years later.

In short, maybe “banning” wins the day and can be a last resort, but it is a tough solution to maintain over the long haul. The best communications in the world are the masters of the nuance and the compromise vs the hammer, and those organizations who find the happy medium  seem to win the most when it comes to access, storytelling, and overall success.