The Problem: Why “ignore it, and it will go away” no longer works
There was once a time when a hostile story from a partisan or fringe outlet could be ignored. Its bias was clear, its reach was limited, and engaging or setting the record straight risked unnecessary amplification. Silence was a viable strategy.
That world no longer exists.
In a matter of minutes, a small story can jump from a fringe outlet to a major social platform, gain traction with a motivated audience, quickly reach millions, and shortly thereafter force the hand of mainstream media to write a story. A narrative that might never have broken through in the past can now demand acknowledgment simply because of its velocity and engagement, shaping public perception. In this environment, the source matters less than the reach — and how quickly that reach grows.
This shift fundamentally changes the rules of crisis response. The first hour after an adversarial story break is decisive. It can define the tone, framing, and direction of everything that follows. Choosing to ignore or decline comment is no longer neutral — it is a missed opportunity to shape the narrative at its most formative stage.
Consider the recent deepfake AI-generated image of food supposedly delivered this past January. What began as a post on X from an Austin-based customer, with a significant following, quickly escalated into a broader online controversy. Fueled by amplification across social media, speculation, and waves of secondary coverage, the story spread from a tweet to coverage on morning shows and international outlets. The backlash prompted a swift official response from DoorDash reiterating its “zero-tolerance” policy on fraud, detailing the investigation that led to the driver’s removal from the platform, full compensation for the customer, and safeguards to prevent similar incidents in the future.
This example illustrates a broader shift in how today’s crises unfold: they are no longer single-day, isolated events. Instead, they evolve in waves, with each new post, reaction, article, and corporate response extending the story’s lifecycle. If organizations are not actively contributing to the narrative on day two and beyond, others will fill that space — often in ways that are incomplete, inaccurate, or adversarial.
Our Approach: Engage early, shape the frame, feed the beast
Responding in this environment requires a different posture. It requires an approach that balances speed with discipline and strategy.
Not every story deserves engagement, but serious inquiries demand quick assessment and a clear decision-making process. That starts with a “first hour” approach: quickly evaluating the facts, identifying risks, and determining whether and how to engage. Surveying online conversation, especially sentiment, is a critical early step. Understanding who is engaging, how audiences are responding, and the speed at which the news is spreading helps shape and inform the broader response strategy. An early assessment of virality also provides clarity on the most effective next course of action.
There are, of course, also legal considerations that need to be factored into a response, and those can take time. But the longer it takes to respond, the more time there is for a negative narrative to spread to the point that you’re playing catch-up to correct the record. Goal number one should be determining if there’s a way to nip the narrative in the bud with a fast, concise statement that neutralizes the story. If that’s not possible, this is the window to shape the frame — correcting key inaccuracies, establishing context, and directly addressing adversarial narratives.
From there, the focus shifts to engagement. This includes engaging selectively, reinforcing key messages, and maintaining clarity as new information emerges.
What’s equally important is planning for what comes next. A strong initial response without a day-two strategy creates a vacuum. Sustained engagement — providing updates, activating validators, reinforcing facts, and continuing to tell your side of the story — is what prevents others from defining the narrative in your absence.
The goal is not to react to everything, but to be present where it matters, early enough to influence how a story is reported and consistent enough to carry the narrative with your point-of-view forward.
You can’t control every story, but you can control whether your voice and your values are part of the conversation. This requires showing up in the first hour and staying engaged until the crisis has fully passed. In a landscape defined by speed, reach and constant attention, presence is no longer optional — it is strategic.
Justin Goodman is an Executive Vice President, based in SKDK’s DC office.