Running Head: IMAGE REPAIR THEORY 1
Image Repair Theory: The right way and the wrong way
Shelby Cunningham
March 22, 2013
CMST 4899: Senior Project
Abstract
Many types of public figures, including politicians, athletes, movie stars, and organizations, have come under public scrutiny at one time or another.This paper looks at how those public figures use Benoit’s Image Repair Theory (IRT) in the aftermath of public negativity. Image Repair Theory deals with the actions one can take after a scandal or crisis in order to restore or improve his/her reputation. There are a variety of strategies that fall under IRT; which strategies are used and how they are used plays a major part in the outcome of a scandal. Research shows that in order to successfully utilize IRT, a public figure must utilize multiple strategies. Another factor to being successful is that one of the strategies used must be mortification. Findings also show that when a public figure utilizes only one or two strategies, he/she will not be successful in repairing his/her image. In relation to that, the least successful strategy a public figure can focus on is denial.
Image Repair Theory: The right way and the wrong way
Introduction
Some say love means never having to say you’re sorry. If only that were the case with celebrity scandal. With the internet and social media providing us with instant information, news channels running 24/7, and TV networks devoted to celebrity gossip, anyone in the public eye is under constant surveillance. Naturally, this leads public figures to have very public scandals. When one’s career depends on his/her public perception, properly handling a scandal is paramount. This is the idea behind Benoit’s Image Repair Theory (IRT), a communications theory that deals with what actions a public figure can take in order to restore or improve his/her image after a transgression(Compton & Miller, 2011; Glantz, 2010; Harlow, Brantley, & Harlow, 2011; Johnson, 2011; Kaylor, 2010; McGuire, 2012; Moody, 2011; Oles-Acevedo, 2012; Sheldon & Sallot, 2009; Walsh & McAllister-Spooner, 2011). Benoit classifies all image repair attempts under five specific strategies. Those strategies are denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification. This paper discusses IRT in relation to how it applies to public figures in the aftermath of a scandal or crisis, and what it takes for a public figure to be successful in his/her image repair campaign. To achieve success, a public figure must utilize multiple strategies, one of which must be mortification. A public figure who utilizes a single strategy, especially when that strategy is denial, will not have a successful image repair campaign.
Literature Review
Multiple Strategies vs. Single Strategy
Harlow, Brantley, & Harlow (2011) note that not only are there a range of image repair strategies, but an even wider range of ways to use them. When embarking on an image repair campaign, a public figure has more success when he/she employs a variety of strategies rather than focusing on just one or two.
In February 2009, two very different public figures faced backlash from the media when negative stories about them were brought to light. When an audio recording surfaced of actor Christian Bale verbally berating a crew member on the set of the filmTerminator Salvation, the media made him out to be a crazy tyrant with anger issues (Johnson, 2011). In order to set the record straight and give his side of the story, Bale spontaneously called into a California radio show. Johnson found that in his attempt at image repair, Bale utilized many strategies, including mortification, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and bolstering. That same month, a photo of Olympic athlete Michael Phelps smoking a bong was published (Walsh & McAllister-Spooner, 2011). In the weeks that followed, Phelps faced a lot of negative press for his actions. But like Bale, Phelps responded by being open about the incident. He admitted he was wrong and apologized (mortification), while he also made efforts to reduce offensiveness and bolster his image. Johnson (2011) and Walsh & McAllister-Spooner (2011) found that both Bale and Phelps were able to restore their public image by using multiple strategies.
In contrast, many public figures have tried narrowing his/her actions to only one or two image repair strategies when faced with a scandal. In the past, radio host Rush Limbaugh and TV host/journalist Dan Rather have both had their reputations questioned. By 2012 Rush Limbaugh had already established himself as an over the top commentator on all things politics and society, and was known for having no shame and no apologies (McGuire, 2012). But when he made derogatory comments about a college student, Sandra Fluke, involved in a congressional hearing, it caused public uproar. Limbaugh at first stood by his comments, even going as far as to continue his criticism of Fluke. But when advertisers started to back out on his show, Limbaugh had no choice but to make attempts to repair his image. Through an official written statement and a follow up on his show, Limbaugh only demonstrated the strategies evading responsibility and reducing offensiveness. Surveys conducted about Limbaugh after the Fluke controversy showed that his popularity had gone down since the event. These results prove that he was unsuccessful in his effort to restore his image.
When Dan Rather and CBS were accused of falsifying facts in one of their news reports, much like Limbaugh, Rather’s integrity was questioned (Kaylor, 2010). Kaylor argues that while Rather did employ more than one strategy, his immediate response was to deny. Glantz (2009) says denial should be used only by those who are positively innocent, otherwise this strategy can end up backfiring. As more evidence about the factuality of the story came out, Rather and CBS’s other attempts at image repair were futile (Kaylor, 2010). By putting all of their efforts into that one strategy of denial, they failed to ever restore their credibility.
Mortification
While research shows that multiple strategies have proven to work for many public figures, it is also important to note that mortification is a common factor for those successful image repair campaigns. Sheldon & Sallot (2009) propose that mortification is the most important of all the image repair strategies because it works the best and yields the best results.
Late Show host David Letterman faced much public criticism after he made an inappropriate sexual joke about Sarah Palin’s 14-year-old daughter (Compton & Miller, 2011). Letterman’s initial response was to reduce offensiveness, saying his joke was misunderstood and misconstrued. He denied wrongdoing by saying he meant the joke to be about Palin’s 18-year-old. He tried to bolster his image by saying he had never made jokes like this before. These image repair attempts were not well received by the media or the public. But he gave it another shot, this time taking back his denial of wrong doing and apologizing for making such a crude joke about a young girl. It wasn’t until this attempt, when Letterman admitted responsibility and used mortification, that he won back the public’s favor. Studies showed that the majority of his viewers accepted his apology, and his ratings actually went up after the incident was said and done.
As mentioned earlier, two public figures with successful image repair campaigns were Christian Bale and Michael Phelps. On the same day that a picture of Phelps smoking a bong was published, he made an official statement apologizing for his actions (Walsh & McAllister, 2011). After his statement many of Phelps’ sponsors and supporters responded positively, saying they accepted his apology and would stand behind the athlete. The media and the public followed not long after, and Phelps’ image as a respectable Olympic champion was intact. Christian Bale may not have reacted quite as quickly or officially as Phelps when faced with his own image crisis, but he still managed to properly use all the image repair strategies at his disposal (Johnson, 2011). Bale used a variety of strategies, but attention should be called to his use of mortification. Not only did Bale apologize, but he preceded his apology by saying there was no excuse for his behavior. He didn’t try to defend his actions or explain how the circumstances had affected him. By taking complete responsibility and even going so far as to say he didn’t deserve forgiveness, he humanized himself to the public and won them over. Ironically at the conclusion of his call in to the radio show, Bale mentioned the Phelps’ controversy which was happening at the same time. Bale defended Phelps’, saying his youthful transgression shouldn’t stand in the way of such a talented career.
Unlike any previously mentioned public figure, Hillary Clinton has a career filled with numerous public scandals and crises. Oles-Acevedo (2012) argues that of all the first ladies throughout history, Hillary Clinton faced the most scrutiny. From her husband’s affair, to testing her gender role, to inappropriate comments, Clinton has gone through her fair share of image repair campaigns and used a variety of strategies. For example, in 1992 Clinton made a statement regarding continuing her own career despite her husband’s political pursuits. Her statement was taken out of context, making it sound like an insult to stay at home mothers. Afterwards Clinton denied that her statement was an attack, and tried to reduce offensiveness by clarifying her meaning. When looked at the transcript as a whole, it is clear that Clinton was not attacking any specific group. Still she apologized to anyone she had offended with her comments. Twenty years after the comment, Clinton’s continuing political career proves that she was able to maintain her image in the public eye.
Denial
Research shows that mortification has been successfully utilized, while the strategy of denial has not worked for many public figures. There are many examples of unsuccessful image repair campaigns that include or are centered on denial. In 2006, Tour de France winner Floyd Landis was accused of using performance enhancing drugs (Glantz, 2009). Landis immediately addressed the accusations by making public statements and appearing on many talk shows. He tried to use a combination of strategies, one of which was denial. Glantz argues that when a person uses denial as an image repair strategy, it often doesn’t work along side with other strategies. Denial is unconditional; trying to differentiate or reduce offensiveness at the same time reduces credibility and looks contradictory. In the case of Landis, denial definitely wasn’t appropriate as more and more evidence came out that proved his guilt. Statistics from a newspaper in Landis’ hometown showed that at the time of the scandal, 19% of those polled believed Landis had taken the drugs. A year later, that number had gone up to 45%.
Another unsuccessful campaign is previously mentioned Rush Limbaugh (McGuire, 2012). Although Limbaugh’s image was not pristine to begin with, the Sandra Fluke controversy remains a low point for his career. In the aftermath, Limbaugh denied that he had said anything wrong. Outrageous and controversial commentary was the center of his career. A public figure’s career history and past behavior plays a major part in how the public responds to a scandal (Sheldon & Sallot, 2009). Someone with a clean slate and a positive history will often have an easier time with image repair, while someone with past transgressions and negative behavior will not be so easily forgiven. McGuire (2012) states that since survey results showed Limbaugh’s popularity had indeed gone down, he was technically unsuccessful at image repair. But Limbaugh’s situation is a unique case. Limbaugh appeals to a very specific demographic, a demographic that tends to agree with his radical statements. He didn’t need to apologize in order to repair his image with his listeners, because more than likely they agreed with what he had said. Perhaps Limbaugh was outsmarting the media, and simply trying to appeal to his audience.
Unlike Limbaugh, there is no question that denial was the downfall of Dan Rather (Kaylor, 2010). As a journalist, Rather’s credibility was the cornerstone of his career. When he reported about then President George W. Bush not completing his time with the Coast Guard, the story was immediately questioned. Rather and CBS stood behind the story, and denied any inaccuracies or falsifications. For any professional public figure, denial is very rarely a good idea. Even when one does believe his/her innocence, it’s best to apologize for any confusion and come up with a logical explanation in order to maintain a positive relationship with the public. As evidence surfaced that showed the story was indeed untrue, there was no reversing their initial denial. Denial ended Rather’s career and tarnished his reputation forever.
In 2009 reality TV family Jon and Kate Gosselin were facing their own public humiliation (Moody, 2011). After ten years of marriage and five seasons of their TLC showJon and Kate Plus 8, the Gosselin’s divorce was front page news. Rumors of Jon having an affair had been circulating for months, so when Kate filed for divorce it appeared there was probably truth to the story. In the months that followed the divorce, Moody analyzed the image repair campaign and public response of both Jon and Kate. Kate did her best to stay out of the public eye for awhile, saying that her only goal was to care for her children. Because of this she was victimized and portrayed as the dedicated mother left behind. Jon’s response was to evade responsibility and deny that he had been unfaithful. As a result he was accused of being a cheating husband and a neglecting father. Much like Floyd Landis, Rush Limbaugh, and Dan Rather, Jon Gosselin sealed his fate when he chose to deny he was at fault.
Summary
In summary, Image Repair Theory is very relevant to the world of public figures faced with media attention on a daily basis. When one’s life is constantly under a microscope, slip ups and mistakes are going to be brought to light. Celebrities, athletes, and politicians are only human, but they must take very specific measures in order to maintain their image. In regards to a public figure handling a scandal, IRT is about actions one must take in order to restore his/her reputation (Compton & Miller, 2011; Glantz, 2010; Harlow, Brantley, & Harlow, 2011; Johnson, 2011; Kaylor, 2010; McGuire, 2012; Moody, 2011; Oles-Acevedo, 2012; Sheldon & Sallot, 2009; Walsh & McAllister-Spooner, 2011). Based on previous research, this paper draws three conclusions about IRT in the modern world of public figures.
How a public figure uses the different image repair strategies can predict the outcome of his/her image repair campaign. Many public figures who have found a way to use a variety of strategies in conjunction have had success at restoring his/her image (Compton & Miller, 2011; Johnson, 2011; Oles-Acevedo, 2012; Walsh & McAllister-Spooner, 2011). In many cases it is important not only to apologize (mortification), but to offer an explanation (differentiation), or promise to do better in the future (corrective action) (Walsh &McAllister-Spooner, 2011). In contrast, public figures that choose to utilize only one strategy or put the majority of their efforts in one or two, often times do not have successful image repair campaigns (Glantz, 2010; Harlow, Brantley, & Harlow, 2011; McGuire, 2012).
As a public figure, one has a duty to be open and honest with the public. Previous research points to the conclusion that of all image repair strategies, mortification is the most useful. Mortification can be as simple as saying “I’m sorry,” or it can provide an explanation or background behind the transgression. The public expects an apology from those that commit some sort of wrong doing (Sheldon & Sallot, 2009). Public figures that don’t have success with other image repair strategies and then turn to mortification can often still have a successful image repair campaign (Compton & Miller, 2011) (Oles-Acevedo, 2012) (Sheldon & Sallot, 2009).
On the other end of the spectrum, denial is characterized as the least effective image repair strategy (Kaylor, 2010). Denial is too unconditional, it leaves little to no room for explanation therefore silencing anything else one can say. If evidence later proves that the denial is a lie, the image repair campaign is set back even further (Glantz, 2010) (Kaylor, 2010).
Even if one is sure of his/her innocence, the more effective tactic would be bolstering or attacking the accuser rather than denial (Kaylor, 2010).
H1: A public figure will have more success utilizing a variety of image repair strategies ratherthan just using one or two.