In times of crisis, the narrative - which is often a simplified, linear version of a polymorphous, complex reality - does not do much to help us to understand the crisis, and worse can provoke or further feed it
Much has already been written about the media frenzy that feeds on snappy summaries and analyses that are too often non-contradictory and questionably objective, to render a complex process into the 280 characters of a tweet or a 5-word headline.
The a posteriori accounts of events are, alas, generally the constructions of somewhat distant witnesses or of more or less objective minds. At worst, what has been written becomes a fact and this media fact generates its own comments. The media crisis is like the seven-headed hydra; cutting off one head creates two new threats...
So, in the din of the crisis, should we raise our voices to try to be heard or should we keep quiet and let the flame burn itself out? To weigh in, or not to weigh in, that is the question!
In fact, the answer may lie more in the approach than in the message. Though it is tempting to universally set the record straight, anonymously addressing the crowd, it is surely preferable to first consider detailed messages to those who matter most. Warren Buffet's so-called profound thought –“It takes 20 years to build a reputation, and 5 minutes to ruin it”- does not stand when applied to familiar relationships. Those who know you know who you are - and it takes more than the froth of the time to shake them.
Every crisis is a pile of contradictory messages. Blessed is he who sees a simple explanation in anything.