Last week, as Hurricane Sandy claimed dozens of lives, demolished homes, and wreaked havoc on millions of people in the eastern United States, I noticed an interesting debate playing out in my Twitter feed.
Some of my Twitter friends took the opportunity to advocate for stronger policies aimed at curbing climate change, for which they blamed Hurricane Sandy. Others took offense at that suggestion, claiming that it was inappropriate to “politicize” tragedy.
These tweets tell the story:
— Spocko (@spockosbrain) October 31, 2012
— Aqil (@shaqfu75) November 1, 2012
I’m not sure I agree with those who argue that it’s wrong to push an agenda during a tragedy. News organizations are fickle: they cover breaking news extensively but for a brief period of time, then move off the story and provide little follow-up coverage. When’s the last time you saw the Aurora movie theater shooting in the news, for example?
Therefore, PR professionals representing a cause—say climate change or gun control—face a choice: Strike immediately to capitalize on the media’s short-term focus on their issue but risk the wrath of the public, or let the moment pass to avoid criticism but lose the media spotlight.
In the case Hurricane Sandy, for example, I believe that PR pros advocating for better climate change policies should make their case while Sandy is still part of the news cycle. I believe that gun control advocates should make their case in the dark days following a mass shooting. The public will be able to create a much stronger cause and effect during a media event than weeks or months after it passes.
Of course, there’s a right and a wrong way to “politicize” tragedy. Pitches for commercial products, like this idiotic one for American Apparel, never have a place:
Advocating for an inherently political cause during a tragic event is a skill that requires incredible deftness, sensitivity, and tact. Tone matters. If you appear to be taking advantage of those who are suffering great losses during the tragedy, the public will rightly hold it against you. But I wouldn’t take this approach completely off the table as a way of bringing attention to important causes.
What do you think? Please vote below.