Freedom of Speech and Trefigura

In America public relations owes its origins more to the concept of relations with publics. So organisations use communication as the means to reach their customers. In Europe, however, there is historically a different, more politically related use of PR. Ever since the seventeenth/eighteenth centuries what we now know as PR has evolved from the desire to establish freedom of speech.

It is in this light that I interpret what did, or rather what almost did not happpen, this week with the case of Trefigura. It would appear that The Guardian were facing an attempt by Trefigura not to publicise information about their activities in another country. This in itself, where companies or individuals might seek an injunction is not unusual. What I think transforms this case is the rather bizarre situation is that Trefigura, in the form of their libel lawyers, Carter Ruck, appear to have tried to prevent The Guardian and other newspapers reporting that an MP, Paul Farelly, in his normal duty as an MP will be askign an oral parliamentary question to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw.

Whilst clearly Carter Ruck were not trying to directly gag an MP, it was a tactical mistake to in effect try to do so indirectly, by trying to prevent journalists reporting what was happening in Parliament. First, it would be impossible to prevent both Farelly's question and Straw's answer from getting out, as both are made public in Hansard and on parliament's website. Second, parliamentarians would jump on the issue, using parliamentary priviledge. With Sir Thomas Legg's recent letter, MPs are feeling the pressure, and this would have been an open goal. MPs could have gained public sympathy as the defender of our human rights. As Manchester United's manager Sir Alex Ferguson often blames referee's when his side play badly to distract attention, had this issue grown it would have been a gift for the body politic.

In terms of handling crises, the consistent advice is that organisations need to be open and engage with their key stakeholders. Lawyers may see how to handle crises very differently because their eye is on the courts, not the media. This seems to be an example where the advice of the legal team has held sway over that of Trefigura's communication team. I suggest that this was a tactical mistake. Rather than putting a lid on the issue, they have actually stoked it, suggesting that it will get bigger. I am sure I would have given the story a very limited glance (if the media I regulalry consult actually gave it an airing). Now I and many others shall continue to look to see what is happening. Moreover, parliamentarians are showing great interest, and the issue was even raised in Prime Minister's Questions.

I suggest that the appropriate response here tactically would have been to consult experienced crisis managers.

The lid was blown off this story because of the use of blogs and microblogs as explained by another interested party, The Independent newspaper. Once a story gets out into cyberspace then issues take off rapidly.

One aspect of this story which surprises me is that Paul Farelly does not appear to have made hay, standing up for the rights of parliamentarians to defend citizens rights. Looking on his website I see no mention of what happened, yet surely his input would be well-reported.