PR

A formal denial reads: "Not all politicians, clerks, and journalists are selling because most have long since sold out!".The humorous and sarcastic duality of this anecdote is surely a sign of the complex nature of refutation in the PR and the media. In the era of abundance of media manipulation and disinformation, the significance, role and place of rebuke as a tool for correct reappearance grows immensely. It serves as a denial of defamation and false rumors  on the one hand, and on the other - for asserting and spreading the truth - the true facts and truths of a person or company. When it becomes "dulled", it is used by communication specialists from different sectors - economy, culture, politics, show business, etc. Though not very thoroughly and modernly, research is still taking place on the subject of refutation as a means of forming or changing beliefs, beliefs and attitudes in the public domain. This is done in the context of philosophy, corporate culture, journalism, PR, marketing, advertising, etc. [1]

Discrepancy in public relations is that public information, which counteracts misinformation and strongly contests and rejects false and malicious claims and rumors of personality, organization, product, commodity, or service. Remedies are used to correct the communication flow and the reliability of its content. The contemporary political and business practice of yesterday and today is abundant with cases in which the press officers rightly or wrongly, justifiably or incorrectly use retaliation (the cases of the attack against President Rosen Plevneliev on his illegally acquired property in Greece or his dispute with the Wall Street Journal whether or not he said that he was ready to set up a cabinet, the reaction of the government`s press center on the rumors in Facebook that Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski had resigned, etc.). Freshly recent is the example with EU Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva, who in 2016 has publicly defended herself against the attacks of Tasko Ermenkov (a BSP MP) that her real name is not really Kristalina, but Stalinka. At her office in Brussels, her counselor Michael Jennings spread the following rebuttal: "Ms Kristalina Georgieva, Vice-President of the European Commission for Budget and Human Resources, has always held only the name Kristalina, which can be established by the respective civil status documents ". A serious argument to this text is the added scanned document of her birth certificate [3].

The power of professional denial is in the clear, accurate and arguable opposition of untruthful and fictional facts, defamatory claims and all sorts of "blows under the belt" that undermine dignity and stain the name of the person or institution.

 

 

The disclosure and correct dissemination of truth is a sacred law in journalism, in mass and in public communications. Society and the individual have the need for credibility to be able to be adequate in their orientation towards facts and phenomena; to make the right and timely decisions; to be free and independent in their existence.

In the Gospel of John, the words of Christ are quoted: "And you will know the truth and the truth will make you free" [4], and in Art of Being, Erich Form observes: "Awareness of truth has a releasing effect - it releases energy and clears mind. As a consequence, a person becomes more independent, finds his personal center and becomes more vital. He may realize that reality can not be changed, but that he has managed to live and die as a human being, not as a beast. "[5] Communication with the truth, the right to learn the truth, the assertion of truth are among the most important meanings both in the life of the person and in the professional realization of the public communicators - journalists, pirates, advertisers,

Disinformation as a manipulative technique is a means of absolutely unsubstantiated misleading society, making false compromises and discrediting the person or organization. Lie and fiction are undoubted means of manipulating and manipulating the facts as it pleases the author, the editors or the doctors of negative communication techniques. They serve to achieve the goal - discrediting, causing sensations, defaming and denigrating someone, making a black PR in the order of custom posts, and so on. [6].

In a regulatory and regulatory aspect, there are documents that, although formally, should ensure that the pseudo-truths and fiction are thwarted and restricted. The cruel suppression of the truth or even the disinformation is in absolute contradiction with the first point of the Code of Ethics of the Bulgarian Media adopted in 2004 - "Providing Reliable Information to the Society" [7]. With it, our media (it is more correct to say - those media that have signed the code) are committed not to distort or hide deliberate facts, not to publish information that is known to be untrue, as and not to mislead society. They should clearly indicate where manipulated texts, images and sounds are used. A guarantee of truthfulness and trustworthy journalism is also the sub-item, which deals with the clear distinction of the facts from the comments and assumptions. The use of different sources of information and the indication of its origin (as far as possible), as well as the reference to identified sources rather than anonymous sources (and therefore doubtful as reliability and honesty) are another condition in the Code of Ethics, which is an attempt to counteract lies and distort the truth in the mass media [8].

The denial or the right of reply is guaranteed to a great extent by our legal framework. For example, in Article 18 of the Broadcasting Act adopted in 1998, as last amended in 2013 [9], it is expressly stated that persons, state and municipal bodies involved in linear media services in which they are not either personally or through a representative, have the right to reply. Opportunities are limited to specific activities such as the fact that, within 7 days of the day of transmission, the persons or authorities concerned have the right to ask the relevant operator in writing to provide the distribution of their response in writing. The claim must state the disputed claims as well as the date and time of the transmission. Again under this Article, the operator is obliged to ensure that the reply is included in the next issue of the same broadcast or equivalent time within 24 hours of receipt of a reply, and the text may not be modified or shortened. Providing a response is free to the individuals and authorities concerned, and the duration of the response can not exceed the duration of the disputed portion of the broadcast.

Particularly in the field of political public communication, and in particular in the context of elections, are also regulated the ways of refuting and responding to negative statements by the opponent. The Electoral Code expressly regulates this right [10]. The access to information section (the campaign chapter) states that the media service provider, with the exception of electronic media, has posted material that violates the rights and reputation of an applicant or of a person who represents the party, the coalition of parties or the initiative committee shall be obliged to immediately publish it after receiving a reply. The publication of the reply takes place in the same place, the same size, type and font format and without comment. As to the size and volume of the answer, there is also a clarification, and it is that the answer is published free of charge up to the volume of the material to which it answers.

For radio and television, the specificity is that when a broadcast that violates the rights and reputation of a candidate or of a person representing the party, the coalition of parties or the initiative committee has the right to answer under the conditions of Art. 18 of the Radio and Television Act. The request to the relevant broadcaster may be made within 24 hours after the transmission has been broadcast. The answer is broadcast without comment [11].

Interesting is the experience in this respect of Great Britain, where there is a Press Appeal Commission [12] established in 1990. Its purpose is to regulate newspapers and magazines without exercising any legal power. The media comply with the rules of the Commission on a voluntary basis. In this case, it is a way of self-regulation of the print media, as this body is able to withstand the means given to it by the newspapers and magazines themselves.

The Complaints Board has been founded "in order to prevent violations of the right of citizens to privacy by print media and, in particular, to penalize the attempts of journalists from such media to endlessly dig into the sex life of politicians and public figures "[13]. The predecessor of this committee was the Press Release in 1953. Citizens` complaints are mostly about allegations of factual inaccuracies, invasion of the privacy, lack of the right to respond, anxiety, and receiving information using hidden technical devices. Almost all cases are settled in favor of the claimants [14].

In the Russian Federation, a law on mass media is in place, where the order of refutation is quite clear. An impression is made by the pursuit of reciprocity in the media - affected person relationship. Disclaimer in print media should be typed in the same font, denominated as "Disclaimer", and published in the same place where the disputed text has gone. This also applies to electronic media - in which the objection and the right of reply should be broadcast at the same time of the day and at the same broadcast where the refuted message was originally broadcast.

There is explicit explanation that the refutation can not exceed as more than twice the disputed fragment of the message or the publication of the respective editing. There are other very specific requirements for the timing and frequency of broadcasting of the refutation according to the specifics of the media - electronic or printed (in weekly broadcasts within ten days of receipt of the refutable text and in the other media - in the forthcoming issue, near time). The edits are obligated to inform the citizen or organization about the alleged time limit for disseminating the refutation or for refusing it, with explicit reasons for doing so, within one month of receipt of the refutation. [15]

 

In its essence as a message and content, the refutation is a tight, condensed and very well-grounded exposure of the true facts by the person or organization concerned as opposed to false statements distributed in the public and media space by the person or organization (or the media) initiators and creators of malicious and untrue information.From a structural point of view, the professional scheme of refutation, which includes the brief and schematic presentation of the case, has long been implemented; the position of the affected person or company; new and additional clarifications and explanations of the case; summary, proposals, appeals, etc. [16]. Some of the more important types and techniques of rebuttal can be reduced to direct refutation, disguised refutation, open letter, refutation of the refuted, and others.

Direct refutation is a direct rejection of libel, rumors and false statements in the public domain. Its peculiarity is that it is quite clear and transparent as the identification of the subject of the black pirate or, in general, the negative information on the affected party.

Direct refutation is particularly effective when it categorically and unconditionally rejects the untrue assertion. It does not need to be long and circumstantial, nor (at least not always) overly detailed. Pirate experts believe that this counter-response to rumors and rumors is a wrong move, as they say "rumors are not disputed." They obviously realize that when the institution or the person engages to respond to rumors, there is an enormous increase in the risk that these unwanted rumors and fairy tales will legitimize, give them importance. There are studies that indicate that "... One can be affected by hearing even if he does not believe in it. And, conversely, one can be negatively affected by a rebuttal, even though he believes in it "[17]. There is always the risk of raising a public suspicion to one who begins to refute rumors or comment on them - which is true and what is not. Separate is that, with regard to corporate culture and business communication, nearly 80% of rumors, one company subsequently proved to be true!

Laconism in direct refutation is working because it does not deepen in the circumstances and causes of insinuations, rumors, and false statements. Brief, tight and clear - in a few words - lies and untruths are rejected. A great example in this regard is the way in which Mark Zuckerberg, the creator and owner of Facebook and / or his teams, reacted to the avalanche of Twitter and Facebook itself that the social network would be closed and that the registered ones would forever lose their photos, videos, and albums uploaded for years. In January 2011 the so-called "Weekly World News Web Site for Fiction and Satire" spreads the news that during a press conference, Mark Zuckerberg made a statement about the inability to manage the grid - an extremely stressful activity that goes out of control and damages his health and that for this reason March 15, 2011 Facebook will be closed. Here is the short, humorous rebuke on the part of the social network itself: "We have not received a closing message, so we continue to work as usual ... We are not leaving, we have just begun."

From a psychological and cultural point of view, the very word "refutation" is not always perceived positively. Firstly, because the value of the rebuttal has diminished to a great extent. Secondly, because it in itself implies a public debate, a duel, a sharp clash of opinions, and the expansion of the conflict. Third, since the classic direct refutation contains the initial statements, rumors and insinuations that will be rejected. Ie. however, the remark again reminds and distributes false statements.

Press Offices, Press Centres, and Corporate Communications Directories often prefer more overwhelmed and masked forms of response, such as "clarification," "application," etc. This also lowers the weight of criticism, and in the audience is formed (or should be formed) the impression that not everything in the behavior of the attacker and the accusations is bad, fictitious and unfair. It`s about the so-called. "Masked" or even "indirect" rebuttal.

A good and often effective technique in public communication is to respond partially and selectively to attacks and malicious statements in interviews and publications on occasions unrelated to the subject of the attacks. It is legitimate to think that: "The interview is an indirect refutation, it is not reminiscent of the" defamers ". Attacked object reminds of itself in a positive light. "[19].This method produces results when, for example, an attacked person or organization is interviewed in the same or another medium for another occasion and, incidentally, briefly, it refers to the compromise or details of it. Thus, in the consciousness, the audience becomes a "rearrangement" of values ​​and facts, with the actual subject of the accusation and defamation being neglected and neglected.

Disguised rebuttal may be not just the interview. The rumors about the poor health of an important political person can be indirectly refuted when photographs or reports illustrating the cheerfulness that he uses his spare time, hunting or fishing, climbing mountain peaks, or taking part in charity sports tournaments. Earlier, the yellow editions were overwhelmed with compromising information about the love and sexual adventures of a particularly high-ranking state person. There was no rebuttal of his press service, but two pages about his family idyll appeared on the pages of a daily newspaper, and in particular about how the discredited politician rested with his family, and in particular his attention was directed to an outrageous-romantic photography with his wife.

Variants of masked denial are the cases in which criticized and discredited organizations or individuals initiate meaningful and meaningful actions, organize socially responsible events, charity campaigns, etc., leaving the media to judge how and how much to reflect these cases. This is also one of the most effective ways to deny lies and attacks, namely behavior in sync with the Latin principle "Res, non verba".

This type of public communication is a commonly used technique that favors the correct distribution of information from a source that is directly affected and suffers from malicious allegations, insults, rumors, slander, etc. It is usually used in cases where the goal is the message to reach society as a whole and to engage public opinion as effectively as possible. The main mission of this kind of rejection of foreign unreliable opinions or sharing a position on a particular issue is to avoid the administrative and bureaucratic pitfalls of various institutions and agencies. Many of the letters, applications, and complaints are sinking forever into the drawers and safes of the organizations they are sent to. Open letters are written and circulated when their author is distrustful of the media and their duty to publish correctly the refutation sent to them.

One of the particularly bright and fresh cases of refutation of lies with the help of the open letter is Anna Vulchanova`s "Do not be Vultures" in the Sega newspaper. The reason for the angry letter is the insinuations and untruths disseminated by some media about the death of our great director and intellectual Rangel Valchanov. In her message, she expresses her indignation at the bland-minded men who came to the media after her father`s death, his last words, his female stories, and a number of others. The glass, however, is overflowing with a publication in the Telegraph newspaper, which claims that the worship of Rangel Vulchanov (and at the same time Ana Vulchanova`s mother) Yana Pipkova is absent. The author of the open letter is also resentful against the anonymity of journalists, inventing stories and versions as they are comfortable, even though they are far from the truth or have nothing to do with it.

The main criticisms in this text refer to the unethical behavior of some media and their inappropriate intrusion into the personal space of the people: "You may call these writings articles, but they are just slanders to me. Be brave with regard to the things on which our life depends, and do not fret over a foreign grave. Do not write with ill-concealed joy about someone`s sickness, as if this makes you healthier. Do not shoot brutally the faces of the grieving and with a mask of empathy asking them how they feel. Fold the tripods as you step into the temple, and close the lenses when you are at the cemetery. Do not be vultures who have felt the slightest human weakness. "[20]

Interesting and useful would be to analyze the case of Plevneliev - Wall Street Journal, in which there is precisely this technique - refutation of the refuted. It was widely reported and debated in the media [21], although some of the details that were exported to the public were unnoticed or just paid little attention. What is happening? On July 25, 2013, the authoritative US Wall Street Journal in its online version quotes Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev as ready to appoint a new government if Plamen Oresharski`s cabinet falls because of the protests insisting on his resignation. The exact quote is: "So far this year we have three governments. Maybe we`ll have five. If this government resigns, I will appoint a new office. "These words were told to a correspondent of the newspaper Sean Carney. The sensational news is quickly spread by Dow Jones, as well as by other agencies and the media.

Very quickly after this publication - literally hours later - there appears to be the rejection of the presidential press secretary, who claims that the head of state in his interview, which lasted almost an hour, did not mention that he was ready to "appoint a new official government" . The presidential website has uploaded an audio file with a full record of the interview. So far, there is a classical case-claim - rebuttal. The newspaper, however, does not accept the objection, and in practice the technique refutes the refutation. Journalist Sean Carney tells our news agency iNews that he is behind his story. Kate Dobin, who is in charge of newspaper communications in Europe, also unambiguously highlights: "The President`s comments are correctly transmitted by the Wall Street Journal.

What does the newspaper do? He simply applies the technique of refuting the refuted. Very quickly, once the head of the press has issued the rebuttal, the Wall Street Journal is correcting and updating its online publication. It reports the press service`s response, but does not delete the main one. In the updated version, Carney points out that Rossen Plevneliev nevertheless said he was ready to appoint a cabinet if Plamen Oresharski had decided to withdraw. The addition is that the presidential administration later turned "off" by explaining that the head of state had in mind the previous governmental government.

Such cases clearly show that press officers (and before them the responsible persons concerned) should be careful with what they disseminate and not engage in endless debates, as in principle a journalist can hardly be summoned and defeated in the dispute.

Those who do not have enough experience in handling information in the mass communication system are very easy and hasty to draft and send to the appropriate media refutation in the event that false statements arise in their address or address to their clients and partners. Should denials always be made in such situations? When can the denial be a boomerang effect? And when is it best to refrain from refuting and denying lies circulated in public space?

It is not recommended to use rebuttal in several cases:

- When the statement is too frivolous and light and, by answering it, we give artificial significance to its author, respectively media.

 

- When the media in which the claim is published has a low degree of confidence and influence (sensational media, yellow edition, boulevard printing, etc.).

 

- When the allegation is not quite invented and it contains not only lies but also truths.

 

- When the evidence chain and arguments of the affected party are not enough to defeat defiantly defamation and hearing.

 

- When responding to the attacks, the personality and the company reinforce the risk of their even greater dissemination and increase the audience`s suspicion and suspicion of us and our actions.

 

Kapferer rightly notes that people may be affected by rumors even when they do not believe in them, and that they can negatively influence a refutation, even when they believe in it. [22] He also puts the following very important question: "Is denial by denial simple enough to not infect those who learn hearing at the moment of refutation?" In the context of this, is there any rumor that "fully vaccinates people "Informing themselves of hearing for the first time by the refutation itself [23].

Most of the refusions were irritating with the vividness of their phrases, either in dry and bureaucratic style and language, or in too large a volume. Recently, at the beginning of a television show, a text of rebuttal of a person affected in the previous issue of the broadcast was read within 6-7 minutes. The effect was negative - boredom, boredom, and - most importantly - mistrust to this overly descriptive, cumbersome and stereotyped message. The author of the rebuttal had the opportunity to participate and personally respond to criticism and attacks, but for unknown reasons (among them I pose anxiety and communication uncertainty) he preferred the trivial way of denial. But one of the greatest risks to rebutment is that through it escalates the spread of hearing, which is said otherwise. "It will also teach one who has not heard of him so far."

But the tactics of "refrain from refutation" and "escape from denial" should not be mixed up. The second is rather crutches and Molecular counterattacking. When attacking, with serious arguments, a person or organization, she instead takes a counter-argument and defends its activity, image and reputation in a convincing way, takes an unexpected move. In his public appearances, the attacked object begins to point out how bad, dishonest and sneaky is the one who criticizes it. E.g. at a negative-emotional level, the public`s attention diverges and shifts to the subject of criticism on the well-known trick "The Thief Crys the Thief".

At the same time, abstaining does not mean surrender to someone`s ridiculous allegations. Through proactive behavior, initiated events and activities, media appearances on other occasions can much more successfully erase the negative image and reconstruct a damaged image and damaged reputation.

 

* * *

 

Refutation is an effective tool for correct pressure in cases where serious and justified criticisms of precision, quality and influential media have to be addressed. However, it is not necessarily a tool in the state of crises, accidents and disasters. Not at least in its most categorical form, namely, the direct refutation. The importance of other techniques of public rejection of false statements, such as the open letter, the refutation of the refuted, etc., should not be underestimated. Or the implementation of proactive actions that indirectly discourage attempts to discredit and disinformate personality and organization. Abstaining from refutation helps to prevent escalation and further spread of hearing, defamation and malicious statement, as well as to avoid the "boomerang" effect in public anti-crisis communication. In short, as a communication tactic, refutation only makes sense when the most successful and appropriate techniques are applied appropriately and in a timely manner, and when absolutely necessary.

 

[1] See for example: Kapferer, Jean-Noel. Rumors [Капферер, Жан-Ноел. Слуховете]. University Publishing House "St. Kliment Ohridski ". Sofia, 1992, [In Bulgarian]; Patsynko, Svetlana. Talk as a social and psychological way of manipulating, [Светлана.Слухи как социально-психологический способ манипулирования], Relga (№3 [148] February 25, 2007), [In Russian]; Tulchinsky, G.L. Culture of business argumentation PR. In: PR firms: technology and efficiency, Тульчинский, Г.Л. Культура деловой аргументации PR. В: PR фирмы: технология и эффективность, Publisher: Aleteyya, St. Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts. St. Petersburg, 2000, [In Russian]; Hristov, Alexander. This post does not match the truth, Христов, Александър. [Тази публикация не отговаря на истината] "Manager" magazine, March 2007, [In Bulgarian]; Tsoneva, Eva. "Black" or negative PR - a means of competitive combat. [Цонева, Ив. „Черен” или негативен ПР – средство за конкуретна борба.] M. "Dialogue", issue 2/2007, [In Bulgarian]; Skumik, Ian (University of Toronto). Rumors, Refutations, and Conflicts of Interest: Problems in Dealing with Unreliable Information. In: Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 32. 2005 and more.

[2] Kapferer, Jean-Noel. Rumors, [Капферер, Жан-Ноел. Слуховете] pp. 204-205. [In Bulgarian]

[3] Kristalina Georgieva showed her birth certificate to deny a lie to herself, [Кристалина Георгиева показа акта си за раждане, за да опровергае лъжа срещу себе си], Dnevnik newspaper, April 8, 2016. [In Bulgarian],

Available: https://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/04/08/2739303_kristalina_georgieva_pokaza_akta_si_za_rajdane_za_da/

[4] Gospel of John, [Евангелие от Йоан], 8:32. [In Bulgarian]

[5] From, Erich. The Art of Being. "Cybea." [Фром, Ерих. Изкуството да бъдеш ”Кибеа”]. Sofia, 1999, pp. 65-66. [In Bulgarian]

[6] Stoykov, Lubomir. Culture and media. [Стойков, Любомир. Култура и медии] SU "St. Kliment Ohridski ". Sofia, 2010, p. 373. [In Bulgarian]

[7] Ethical Code of the Bulgarian Media. [Етичен кодекс на българските медии] Sofia, 2004. [In Bulgarian]

[8] See: Stoykov, Lubomir. Culture and Media, [Стойков, Любомир. Култура и медии] p. 373. [In Bulgarian]

[9] Radio and Television Act [Закон за радио и телевизия] (Amended and supplemented, SG No. 27 of 15 March 2013) [In Bulgarian]

[10] Election Code [Изборен кодекс] (Amended and supplemented, SG No. 17 of 21 February 2013), [In Bulgarian]

[11] Ibid., [Пак там. In Bulgarian]

[12] Press Complaints Commission. Available from: http://www.pcc.org.uk/

[13] Media in the UK and the US / Aut. Valentin Iliev, Eleana Hayworth, Danail Danov, Krassimira Olah, Madlen Vasileva; Composition. Madlen Vasileva. [Медиите във Великобритания и САЩ / Авт. Валентин Илиев, Елеана Хауърт, Данаил Данов, Красимира Олах, Мадлен Василева; Състав. Мадлен Василева.] Polis. Sofia, 2000, p. 91. [In Bulgarian]

[14] See: In more detail: Press Complaints Commission. Available from: http://www.pcc.org.uk/

[15] Laws and Codes of the Russian Federation. Law of the Russian Federation "On Mass Media" (on the media). [Законы и Кодексы Российской Федерации. Закон РФ "О средствах массовой информации" (о СМИ)] Available from: http://www.zakonrf.info/zakon-o-smi/44/ [In Russian]

[16] See more in detail: Hristov, Alexander. This post does not match the truth, [Христов, Александър. Тази публикация не отговаря на истината], m. "Manager" March 2007. Available from: http://spisanie.manager.bg/broi-101/marketing/tazi-publikatsiya-ne-otgovarya-na-istinata?page= 3, [In Bulgarian]

[17] Kapferer, Jean-Noel. Rumors, [Капферер, Жан-Ноел. Слуховете] p. 208. [In Bulgarian]

[18] How the PRs extinguish fires, Press Newspaper, Issue 365, January 15, 2013.

[19] Tsoneva, Iv. "Black" or negative PR - a means of competitive combat. Sp. "Dialogue", [Как пиари гасят пожари, в.”Преса”] issue 2/2007, p.89. [In Bulgarian]

[20] Valchanova, Ana. Do not be Vultures, Newspaper Sega, [Вълчанова, Ана. Не бъдете лешояди, в. „Сега”], Issue 4815 (238), October 12, 2013, [In Bulgarian]

Available from: http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=669468

[21] Among them are "Dnevnik" newspaper, "Press" newspaper, "24 hours" newspaper, "Monitor" newspaper, "Sega" newspaper, MediaPul Web site and others.

[22] Kapferer, Jean-Noel. Rumors, [Капферер, Жан-Ноел. Слуховете], p. 208. [In Bulgarian]

[23] Ibid., [Пак там] pp. 208-209. [In Bulgarian]