The Press Release That Will Be Read in Court
You are duty officer at 07:00 after a house fire at 14 Mill Lane. The communications officer has drafted this release and wants it out in 40 minutes:
"At 02:14 this morning, firefighters attended a fire at 14 Mill Lane. The property was occupied by an elderly gentleman who was lucky to escape. The fire was caused by an electrical fault in the kitchen. Crews had the incident under control within 20 minutes. No one was injured, although one ambulance attended. The occupant's details cannot be released for legal reasons. This is the third fire in the town this month, showing that electrical fires are on the rise."
The fire investigator has confirmed only the time, address, control time and that there were no serious injuries. One neighbour has already posted a video online.
1. Identify the sentences that create the greatest risk and explain, for each, what the risk actually is.
Read the worked answer
1. "The fire was caused by an electrical fault in the kitchen." Highest risk. The investigator has not determined the cause. Publishing a cause pre-empts the investigation, may be contradicted later, and could prejudice insurance or legal proceedings. Cause is stated after investigation, not before.
2. "…who was lucky to escape." This implies the occupant did something wrong or was reckless. It invites blame of a person who may become a casualty, a complainant or a defendant, and it reads as the service's official view of his conduct.
3. "…showing that electrical fires are on the rise." Three fires is not a trend. Small numbers swing wildly, there is no baseline or comparison period, and a rival statistician can dismantle it in one line. If the claim is wrong, every other statement in the release becomes suspect.
4. "No one was injured, although one ambulance attended." Internally inconsistent and it raises a question the release then refuses to answer.
5. "…cannot be released for legal reasons." Vague and evasive; it sounds like there is a legal problem rather than a privacy policy.
2. Rewrite the release in no more than 50 words, keeping only what is confirmed, and state what you would do before publication.
Read the worked answer
Rewrite (38 words): "Firefighters attended a fire at 14 Mill Lane at 02:14 today. Crews brought the fire under control within 20 minutes. There were no serious injuries. The cause has not yet been established and will be the subject of investigation."
Why this version: every sentence is traceable to the investigator's confirmed facts. "Not yet established" is honest and closes the door without sounding obstructive. "No serious injuries" is accurate where "no one was injured" might not be.
Before publishing:
- Get the investigator to sign off the wording, in writing.
- Check the neighbour's video - if it is already circulating, the release should not contradict what people can see.
- Agree one line for media enquiries about the occupant: "We are not releasing details about the occupant" - no reason given, because a stated reason invites argument.
- Hold the trend claim; refer it to the prevention team to check against 12 months of data, and publish separately if it survives.
3. The communications officer argues the trend sentence should stay because 'it makes people check their wiring'. How do you decide, and what would you offer instead?
Read the worked answer
The test I apply: is the claim true, is it ours to make, and does the benefit outweigh the cost of being wrong? It fails the first test on three incidents, and a fire service that is caught overstating risk loses the authority it needs for every future safety message. Persuasion built on a shaky number is a withdrawal from a credibility account that gets used all year.
What I offer instead: a message that needs no trend. "Most house fires start in the kitchen. Check your sockets, don't overload extension leads, and make sure you have a working smoke alarm" is accurate on any day of any month and cannot be undermined.
Process point: the decision is mine as duty officer, not a negotiation, but I explain the reasoning rather than pulling rank. If the officer still believes there is a trend, the route is a properly costed prevention campaign using verified data - and I would support that, because the underlying instinct is good. The instinct is not the same as the statistic, and the release should carry the one that survives scrutiny.