Merseyside Police response a lesson in controlling the narrative in the age of outrage

Within two hours of yesterday’s tragic events at the Liverpool FC victory parade - where a vehicle veered into crowds, injuring dozens - Merseyside Police released details about the ethnicity and nationality of the suspect, namely that he was a 53-year-old white British man from the local area.

This level of disclosure, and the speed of it, in such a case, is highly unusual. But it was a decision, of course, shaped by painful precedent. Less than a year ago, the Southport tragedy - a horrific knife attack at a children’s dance class - was followed by a communications vacuum. The authorities initially withheld the identity of the suspect because he was a minor. But into that vacuum poured a toxic mix of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy, with social media users falsely identifying the suspect as a recent Muslim immigrant. 

These rumours spread rapidly, amplified by prominent individuals including Nigel Farage and Andrew Tate, leading to riots and protests in Southport, London, Hartlepool and Aldershot.

This time, Liverpool’s authorities were determined not to let the same thing happen again and should be commended for the speed of their communications response, which avoided the situation potentially turning into a cauldron of misinformation that could have serious consequences.

Communications has clearly become a hugely important part of operational policing in high-profile incidents of this nature, in no small part due to the flood of fake news emanating from social media users.

Not every business will have a crisis that attracts such levels of public attention, misinformation or outrage. But the principles at play are relevant to any organisation seeking to take control of a reputational issue or crisis. 

Speed matters. Any delay in communicating in the first hours after an incident creates space for misinformation to flourish. The thirst for information can be unquenchable after high-profile incidents, and this is even more complex due to the number of channels through which companies must consider, and the sad fact that we live in an age where outrage is amplified by social media algorithms. Posts and comments, whether based in fact or not, can have a marked impact on public perception.

Having clear, well-tested protocols and plans in place can make a vast difference to how quickly you can get your first response out.

Of course, speed can often be the enemy of accuracy, which regularly leads to organisations defaulting to caution, waiting for legal and other internal approvals, and a desire to wait for the full picture. While these all have merit, in today’s media and social media environment, silence is rarely a good option. With effective preparation and an understanding of the balance between speed and accuracy, both needs can be managed with timely, periodic updates to prevent speculation. 

In the age of misinformation and disinformation, taking control of the facts and the narrative by responding quickly, clearly and credibly, is a non-negotiable. If you don’t tell your story, someone else will. And the chances are, they won’t be kind or even remotely accurate. 

The authorities in Liverpool should be congratulated for clearly having learned lessons from previous incidents and embedding those into their crisis communications protocols. Companies should do the same.