Ever touched the hem of a scandal-ridden garment? I’m taking the Epstein email publication fall-out to return to an old chestnut in Maltese media politics – guilt by association
The ageing Noam Chomsky appears tainted by his glib, almost slavish email of support to Jeffrey Epstein, shining a light on the academics courted by the billionaire monster and the money he used to keep so many luminaries close to him. Equally, many other ‘persons of interest’ met Epstein on less invested occasions, enthused by his charm and intellect without knowing his dark secrets: a case in point might be former French minister for Jack Lang.
If you are in the public spotlight, whether by dint of a public sector responsibility or by your profile as a private sector executive, guilt by association is a real public relations scenario to handle.
In Malta, think of the Yorgen Fenech WhatsApp leaks: the episode became shorthand for the belief that politicians operate by different rules, because the system is unwilling to hold them fully to account. That is called elite impunity, and that means all public figures must address a wider perception that they represent a protected class.
And here are my key takeaways.
1. Association does equal ‘guilt’ in public perception
Guilt by association is the default reaction in today’s information ecosystem.
In the Yorgen Fenech WhatsApp leak, bar the serious gifts-for-influence scandal that belatedly forced a junior minister’s resignation, not everyone who exchanged messages with him were aware of his nefarious dealings. But understand that there has been a fundamental shift in how the public judges high-profile individuals: there is little room for nuance or context when guilt by association enters the frame.
So… girdle your loins. Because the liability might be career-ending for some, even when they honestly pleading having “not known about the crimes”. That is no longer sufficient for reputation protection.
2. Who gets the most blame is a combination of various factors
The severity of the fallout is unequal. The consequences are like a machine-guy spray of bullets.
In guilt by association scenarios, the reputational cost can affect minor personalities more than other powerfule figures.
I always consider the balance sheet of social credit: the factors that determine the reputational fallout will depend on:
(a) pre-existing public sentiment toward the individual;
(b) current political/social capital;
(c) speed and quality of their response
(d) if you are elected/appointed positions vs. private sector
3. ‘Continuing contact after knowing guilt’ – a real problem
This is basic life advice. If you continue contact with someone knowing they have committed an act, or have been intimated in connection with an act that is the exact opposite of what you represent / or is in direct contrast to your public duty or public persona, contact should be severed.
With Epstein, many sought to send him supportive emails, clearly showing they were in thrall of his (financially beneficial) friendship.
This shows catastrophically poor judgment – maintaining contact with someone after a publicly devastating exposé of crimes, even if you claim ignorance of the full scope of crimes, is indefensible from a PR perspective.
4. Pre-emptive denials create vulnerability
A pre-emptive denial is a dangerous hedge.
In today’s information ecosystem, a lot of words and actions get committed to text, audio and video; a lot of information is traded and leaked; the press is rightly invested into this distributino of information.
A pre-emptive denial sets the stage for binary exposure: you either said the truth or you are a liar once new information contradicts your initial statement. Choose measured initial statements: “I had limited professional contact many years ago” to leave somme room for maneuvre when new information emerges.
5. ‘Intelligent and charismastic’. Yeah, but he is still a sex-crimes monster
The best of us are bad judges of character – powerful people whose ambition fuels their rise to the top come armed with ‘charisma and intelligence’.
The public will expect you to always perform some degree of due diligence even on sophisticated individuals, especially if you are in a position of public trust.
Respect this expectation even if you were unable to do so: the ‘I was deceived’ narrative only partially mitigates damage.
6. Vulnerability from industries and social scenarios where money is key
This ARTnews article reveals the extensive penetration into museum boards and cultural institutions by people like Jeffrey Epstein: the reality is that in industries which have fluid social structures such as the art world, personal relationships, social events, and discretionary philanthropy make it particularly vulnerable to association scandals.
There is always a transactional nature in these relationships (donations, board seats, introductions), which means executives and decisions-makers have to price in the risk and suspicion of such relationships.
7. The crisis may never stop. That’s the internet.
Millions of pages of emails, contacts, calendars and recordings from the Epstein archive means this steady stream of new stories will never cease to be referenced and repackaged in news stories or social media platform reels, vids and memes.
Inelegantly put… that’s digital herpes for reputations.
It will never be a one-time crisis: new revelations will re-emerge periodically for years, reopening wounds and creating new questions. It will always require ongoing crisis management.
Strategic PR recommendations
For institutions – implement rigorous screening especially with philanthropic/cultural connections, and document decision-making processes for accepting donations or forming relationships, with paper trails showing when and why relationships ended
Clear professional boundaries – document your interactions and be wary of attending private gatherings at personal residences
Create crisis response protocols – get a media expert to develop tiered response strategies based on severity of association
Don’t litigate the facts – that extends the news cycle
Be authentic – I have no antidote to guilt by association, but proactive transparency, self-awareness, assuming responsibility (resignation/reparation is not losing, it is the first step to rebound) are 100 times better than defensive posturing and silence.
Have you sorted out your crisis communications response manual?
