Pope Benedict XVI's Public Relations

In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI made a trip to the United States.  The trip came on the heels of The Catholic Church’s destructive scandal involving pedophile priests. In order to make a name for himself and in an attempt to combat the humiliation of such a historic disaster, Pope Benedict orchestrated his time in America by including events which would ultimately restore the public’s faith in the church. 

He began by discussing the pedophile scandal with reporters before his plane even landed. Next, he held a conference with sex-abuse victims. In addition, he went to a synagogue in New York, held a mass at Yankee Stadium and spoke with the United Nations.

But the Pope had other options. One option would have been to ignore the problems and try to rise above them. He could have just followed in previous Papal footsteps and visited the president or presided over a mass, but this would have been ignoring the obvious problem. Although the idea that refusing to address the problem would draw less attention to the scandal, the firestorm over the abuse was so well known that ignoring it would just raise more questions.  Either way the pervasive scandal would have made its way into the media. Providing the public with an honest, direct response made Pope Benedict seem candid, which inspired confidence in his leadership.

He could have tried to address the issue on his own turf before coming to America. He previously had attempted to remain silent on the issue, but once he made it to the US he decided to confront the scandal. If however, he had attempted to give his opinion and express his remorse in Italy, then the media might have already covered the information thoroughly and wouldn’t have given the story as much attention on his arrival.

The downside of using his trip to address the pedophile scandal is that it draws more attention to the situation. It could cause the public to concentrate on the scandal rather than the positive issues that he was offering. But completely ignoring it would raise suspicion and leave devotees wanting answers to their questions. 

Dog The Bounty Hunter Scandal

Duane "Dog The Bounty Hunter" Chapman’s racist language almost cost him his job in November 2007. During an off-screen telephone conversation, Chapman used an obscene racial slur while trying to persuade his son to break-up with his African American girlfriend. After suspending Chapman for a short time, the A&E network brought back the show.

A&E could have completely pulled Dog The Bounty Hunter from the air and refused to work with a man who misrepresented the company in a negative way. But completely pulling the show off the air before gauging the public’s opinion could have cost them a successful program.

They could have cut Chapman’s pay, unless there was a contract preventing it. Typically, a quick way to let an employee know that you are serious is to cut their pay or hours. Giving Chapman real consequences for his actions might have helped to make his situation seem more serious.

Another interesting option might have been to find another star for this type of show. Although it wouldn’t have been the same “Dog” that attracted an audience with his brash antics; they could have found another fugitive recovery agent to replace him.

This, like many PR questions, is a tricky one. I don’t think it really has a simple answer. To not allow employees to have their own opinions, however disgusting they may be, is not a trait that I would encourage for any institution. However, employees must recognize that their behaviors are a reflection on their employers.

I think that A&E should have taken Chapman back with a long list of conditions. Perhaps they could have insisted that he make a public apology for his behavior.  Or they could have insisted that he enlist in tolerance classes.

Allowing Chapman to return, regardless of the conditions still has a negative impact on A&E’s reputation in some respects. It leads the public to believe that racist language and inappropriate behavior are tolerated by A&E.