عذرخواهی، همدردی و همدلی: عواقب قانونی اعمال خطا در روابط عمومی ایالات متحده  Apology, sympathy, and empathy: The legal ramifications of admitting fault in U.S. public relations practice

1. Introduction Apology is pervasive within American society. At its core apology is part of having good manners because it is viewed as taking responsibility for oneself. Frequently children are admonished for not “saying they’re sorry” or for not giving an apology and “mean it.” This culture of apology goes beyond childhood and influences adult behaviors as well. In fact, apology has become a type of “ritual” within our society in which aggrieved people are made right by the issuance of an apology (Bolivar, Aerten, & Vanfraechem, 2013, p. 124). Because of this, apology has become a popular form of communication, particularly in public relations. This role of apology is evident in numerous crisis communication case studies and theories that argue organizations sometimes must use apology to maintain relationships with publics (Swann, 2008; Richardson & Hinton, 2015; (Hendrix, Hayes & Kumar, 2012). All of this comes at a price. Apology is not a cure-all for PR crises because there are legal implications that resonate well after the crisis has passed. Public relations literature suggests that organizations need to own their transgressions and seek transparency to build relationships with key publics. However, in many crises PR practitioners are faced with legal limitations on what, if anything, they can say about the organization’s level of fault. This frequently creates tension between public relations and legal departments who struggle between acknowledging organizational fault and legally denying all responsibility (Coombs, 1995; Coombs 2013; Lee & Chung, 2012). The admission of guilt by a person or organization has a longstanding history in U.S. criminal and civil laws. Currently the Federal Rules of Evidence specifically recognize admissions of guilt as an exception to hearsay rules. Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 801(d)(2) allows for statements made by a party-opponent (i.e., person being sued) to be admitted at trial regardless if the person who made the statement testifies. Similarly Rule 804(b)(3) allows a person’s prior statements against interest (i.e., statements that demonstrate guilt) into evidence regardless if the speaker testifies (Federal Rule of Evidence 804). These admissions and statements can take many forms including verbal and written statements such as press conferences, press releases, official statements, and social media comments. Because most states craft their evidence rules to mirror the FederalRules of Evidence, all organizations facing litigation in state or federal courts can have their prior statements admitted into court as evidence of their legal fault.