On May 16th, in the wake of Michael Isikoff's assertion that U.S. soldiers in Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran and ensuing riots in Afghanistan, Newsweek addressed the story and apologized for not working to get better confirmation. The magazine was later vindicated, but for a couple of weeks blogs and pundits eviscerated Isikoff and the magazine and the White House questioned how the incident reflected on the publication's—and the media's—credibility.

For an industry wholly dependent upon its trustworthiness, the press has had a lot of credibility problems lately. The instances have been well documented (there's nothing more appealing to media types than schadenfreude wrapped in self-righteousness), and the media companies involved have issued their mea culpas, but the process of rebuilding media credibility has just begun.

When a news organization finds itself in a credibility crisis, the wheels immediately go into motion. The editorial side might issue a long correction, and sometimes the person/people responsible for the lapse will be fired, but that is often only the beginning of restoring the public's belief that the publication or news program can again be trusted to objectively and truthfully convey information. And this, of course, is where the PR folks come in.

Catherine Mathis, vice president for corporate communications at the New York Times, says that during the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal in 2003, her department strived to respond promptly, truthfully and thoroughly to all press queries, and that the PR department of the paper took a number of pro-active steps to communicate its message both internally and externally.

"The formal means [of distribution] include press releases, interviews, staff memos, town hall meetings, speeches and clip analysis and distribution, to name a few," says Mathis. "Informal means include blogs or conversations among colleagues. Word choice is important in a journalistic organization such as ours, but most importantly, the words must ring true."

Mathis also noted that the Times had its editors appear on broadcast and cable television in the U.S., and made sure they continued to speak with electronic media in the Mideast and in Europe, as well as with trade media. She also says her team didn't base the Times' response upon the size of the media organization asking the questions.

"We knew we made a mistake, we announced measures to improve the magazine going forward—and we delivered this message with equal urgency to The New York Times and the smallest internet publisher," she said.

Harold Burson, the founding chairman of Burson-Marsteller, a firm with a long history in the field of crisis management says the most important thing in a credibility (or other) scandal is to gather the sometimes-elusive facts at the beginning of the process.

"Don't say anything about an incident until you get the facts—except that you're sorry—if people were hurt or killed or otherwise inconvenienced," says Burson. "It's easy to get the word out, depending on the nature and severity of the crisis—telephone, e-mail, press conference, etc. Developing messages should start from the very beginning—and they should be consistent. There should be only one spokesperson."

Steve Anderson, director of communications at USA Today says that during the Jack Kelley credibility scandal last year, the most crucial aspect of the PR department's response was the way that it was on the same page with the newsroom from the beginning, and that he worked with editors on the message points, helping them to succinctly verbalize what they wanted to say.

"I wanted to make sure that what one person said was consistent with what another person said," said Anderson. "This can get out of hand, so we kept the circle of spokespeople small."

Peter Himler, a senior PR consultant who freelances for a number of news organizations, says that, more than just managing the message, public relations departments need to constantly evaluate how the crisis is evolving, these days largely done by monitoring what is being said on blogs and other news sites.

"Blogs really let you get your finger on the pulse," says Himler, who recently started a blog (http://theflack.blogspot.com) to dissect PR responses to current events. "By knowing what is going on out there, you can come up with better strategies for responding."

These strategies often involve getting editors, producers and reporters onto the talk show circuit to get the message out and explain the anatomy of the situation. More than just getting out their side of the story, Himler says trust can rebuilt quickly if there is the perception of transparency and the public feels that it understands how the organization is reacting.

"In situations like this, media companies really want to be open about what the situation is," says Himler. "Media companies should want to do the right thing, which is respond and make sure the truth is getting out there. Sometimes they can't, or won't, and they pay for it. It just depends how hot [the issue] is."

Ken Weine, Newsweek's communications director, agrees that transparency is necessary in a credibility crisis, both because it helps to defuse the crisis as well as address what he calls the most important aspect of Newsweek's brand: the relationship between readers and the magazine.

"Every person in this building was concerned solely with doing right by our 3.1 million readers," says Weine. "Not to say folks didn't hear the tremendous amount of noise coming from many other quarters, but institutionally (from the top with [Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Rick Smith] and Mark [Whitaker], and throughout the organization) the first concern was speaking to our weekly audience."

Accordingly, the magazine followed up the flap with a first-ever cover roofline that read, "Trust and Sources: What Newsweek Will Do." Inside there was a letter from Smith, and two Editor's notes from Whitaker, speaking directly to readers about the scandal and the newsweekly's new policies on sourcing.

"This transparent and comprehensive message from the top of Newsweek's masthead allowed the communications department, and the various editors and reporters who appeared on the magazine's behalf, to worry merely about getting out the message, not creating one from scratch," says Weine.

Anderson says that once USA Today knew that there was an issue, the PR department felt it was important to do two things: correct the record and make sure something like that didn't happen again.

"We had to explain to readers exactly what happened and what we would do about it so readers could trust us in the future," says Anderson. "We knew that our readers have always been very involved with the USA Today brand. They're very willing to participate in interactive programs (polls, hotlines, reader panels). We hear from readers constantly. They tell us what we do right and what we do wrong...and they're not shy about it. With that kind of interactivity, we knew our readers would follow this story closely."

Anderson says it was important for the PR department to demonstrate to readers that the paper took the matter seriously, and give the sense that they would expose their internal flaws and their efforts to correct them. He says that by answering as many questions as possible in their reporting and investigation, the result would be an increased sense of credibility, and would demonstrate a respect for the paper's readers."

"In short, we'd publicly identify the problems, we would be transparent in letting readers know what we were doing and then we would promise to let them know the fixes that we would put in place so they could continue to trust us," says Anderson. "We value them and…will do whatever is necessary to maintain their trust."

Like the Times, after the Kelley flap,USA Today published exhaustive reporting on their internal investigation, and appended a note on every article in question in its online archives explaining the situation to readers.

On the whole, USA Today's efforts were largely successful, according to Anderson. He notes that the paper has lost neither circulation nor advertising as a result of the incident.

When credibility scandals like these occur, media companies will often enlist outside crisis specialists to help them craft the response, as well as help the internal PR department manage the barrage of inquiries from other media seeking information.

Himler says that often these crisis managers will offer to work pro-bono because either they have a relationship with the company's executives, or because they want to develop one.

"Often these companies will bring in outside counsel under the radar in a paid capacity," he says. "There are a lot of different things to be considered, including legal implications and investor relations, and so everything that is said and done needs to be very carefully considered."

Mathis says the Times mostly used internal staff during the Blair debacle, but that some outside counsel was employed.

"In a crisis situation, you end up with many PR firms calling and expressing their willingness to help," she says. "Afterwards, we did survey several outside PR firms to get their ideas on what we could have done differently."

Anderson says that USA Today did get outside help to deal with the Kelley scandal, but only for a media training session with then editor Karen Jurgensen, who was not entirely comfortable in front of a television camera.

The end result of these kinds of scandals, according to Himler and the publication's PR department, depends on the reputation that the news organization had before the flap, and the measures it takes to resolve the problem. One scandal may give grist to a news company's detractors, but, unless it is proven to be systemic, it can be overcome.

"Time heals," says Himler. "In the end that proves to be the most vital thing."

David S. Hirschman is mediabisto.com's news editor.