By Richard Olatunde
There was once a Commissioner for Information in Ondo State, Nigeria, whose major strategy was to “kill”any negative story against the government and his principal. Correspondents would write their stories and send to their head offices for publication. They would wake up the next day and never find the stories in the newspapers. The stories had been killed.
Under the same government, a whole edition of a magazine tabloid was mopped up from newsstands in order to ensure that members of the public did not get to read it. “Killing the story” was a popular strategy that frustrated both correspondents and opposition parties in the state, especially in the build up to the 2012 governorship election.
But that phase has gone with time and is no longer in fashion. The way crises occur now, it is impossible for anyone to “kill” a story. In the past, journalists would attend a press conference or receive a press release and, in a bid to balance the story, call the affected party for a reaction. Most times, that was how the affected person became aware that there was a crisis to be managed. But that’s no longer the case now.
One of the biggest lessons I learned during my time as Special Assistant on New Media, and later as Chief Press Secretary, is that crises rarely start with a journalist’s phone call anymore.
A few years back, the process was predictable. Today, a crisis often begins on social media. You wake up to find a post on X, TikTok, Facebook, or Instagram that has already gained traction. It is either an allegation, a misunderstanding, or sometimes an outright falsehood. By the time traditional media is calling, the narrative is already spreading. Screenshots are everywhere, and opinions are hardening.
That is the shift communication professionals have to grapple with. The first 60 minutes of a crisis are less about press statements and more about monitoring digital spaces, verifying facts quickly, and deciding whether to engage immediately or strategically.
So, yeah, the newsroom still matters, but the first battlefield of reputation is now digital. And that changes the skill set and mindset required for the job.
One of the controversies I handled as Chief Press Secretary was the circulation of a voice note in January 2023. But what made it memorable was not just the issue, but how fast it spiralled online before journalists even called. That was when I realised that the first hour of crisis communication is now fought on digital platforms, not in the newsroom. Screenshots, posts, and hot takes often set the tone before journalists ever get involved.
However, this reality has also pushed many media managers and spokespersons to sacrifice accuracy for speed. As much as speed matters, accuracy protects your credibility. The pressure to respond quickly is real, but rushing without the facts often backfires.
The real challenge is building a system where you can be the first credible voice, not just the first voice. And that is where your angle gets interesting. The old playbook was activated once you received a call from a journalist for a reaction, but the new playbook starts where people actually gather first, on social media platforms.
The implication is clear; Crisis communication can no longer be reactive, it must become predictive.
Communication managers must now invest as much in social listening as they do in media relations. It is no longer enough to maintain cordial relationships with editors and correspondents. Equally important is understanding how conversations evolve online, identifying emerging narratives before they become dominant, and detecting misinformation before it hardens into public belief.
This is where preparation becomes invaluable. Every organisation should have a crisis communication framework long before a crisis occurs. Who verifies the facts? Who approves a response? Which platform should carry the first official reaction? How quickly should a holding statement be issued while investigations continue? These questions should never be answered in the middle of a crisis.
In this age of social media, silence often creates a vacuum, and vacuums are quickly filled by speculation, assumptions, and outright falsehoods. If an organisation cannot immediately provide all the answers, it should at least acknowledge the issue, state that the facts are being established, and assure the public that a comprehensive response will follow. Such transparency often earns more trust than delayed perfection.
At the same time, speed should never come at the expense of truth. There is a significant difference between responding quickly and responding carelessly. A spokesperson who issues an inaccurate statement in the rush to beat the online conversation will lose credibility.
Perhaps that is the defining challenge of modern public communication. It is no longer about “killing the story.”, that era has passed. It is about influencing the conversation with verified facts, consistency, and credibility. In today’s reality of media convergence, you cannot stop people from talking, but you can ensure that when they look for the truth, your voice is the one they trust.
That, in my view, is the new mandate of the modern spokesperson. Both the battlefield and the audience have changed. Our communication strategy must change too.