Communicating in the post‐truth era: Analyses of crisis response strategies of Presidents Donald Trump and Rodrigo Duterte

AuthorNatasha Binte Mohamed Ismail,Augustine Pang,Carlo Miguel Alfonso Francia,Marie Angeline Pagulayan
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1883
Published date01 February 2019
Date01 February 2019
ACADEMIC PAPER
Communicating in the posttruth era: Analyses of crisis response
strategies of Presidents Donald Trump and Rodrigo Duterte
Natasha Binte Mohamed Ismail
1
|Marie Angeline Pagulayan
1
|
Carlo Miguel Alfonso Francia
1
|Augustine Pang
2
1
Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and
Information, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore
2
Professor of Corporate Communication
(Practice), Lee Kong Chian School of Business,
Singapore Management University, Singapore
Correspondence
Augustine Pang, Lee Kong Chian School of
Business, Singapore Management University,
50 Stamford Road, Singapore 178899.
Email: augustine@smu.edu.sg
The rhetoric of then U.S. Presidentelect Donald Trump and Philippines' President
Rodrigo Duterte had triggered a shift in global political discourse (Greene, 2016). This
study examines their responses on three similar crises: disrespectful remarks towards
women, associations with controversial political figures, and remarks threatening
geopolitical relations. Data from prestige publications, Washington Post (U.S.) and
the Philippine Daily Inquirer, were analyzed during the acute stage of each crisis.
Findings showed that both men employed confusing strategy combinations in their
crisis responses. Despite incoherent application and contradictory strategies, they
survived threats to their image as evidenced by poll results. New strategies (diversion
and logorrhea) and a strategy amplifier (machismo) were uncovered. These strategies
tapped on ambiguity and were found to be successfully employed in a posttruth
landscape. This study builds on Benoit's (2006) argument that any attempt by a
president to repair a damaged image clearly merits scholarly attention(p. 138).
1|INTRODUCTION
Crisis situations are unavoidable (Pang, 2016) regardless of one's
standing in life, and presidents, who are chief politicians, are no
exception. They frequently encounter crises (Sheldon & Sallot, 2009),
with their image and reputational assets coming under threat (Benoit
& Pang, 2008). Their crisis response requires careful negotiation as
their work affects the public, and they may find it difficult to openly
admit mistakes (Benoit, 1997). In responding, they must consider the
following factors: minimized reelection possibilities, attacks from
opposition politicians who want to protract the crises in the public
eye, potential litigation, personal and economic sanctions, and reputa-
tional damage to their countries. As such, their image repair efforts
warrant rigorous academic scrutiny (Benoit, 2006).
1.1 |The importance of effective crisis response for
leaders and nations
Crises around leaders can result in personal sanctions. Robert Mugabe,
former president of Zimbabwe, was stripped of his honorary degrees
(Szep, 2008) and knighthood (Tran, 2008) after links to atrocities com-
mitted in the early 1980s emerged.
Furthermore, a government that mishandles crisis puts the trust
of its citizens and its international reputation at stake (Cai, Lee, &
Pang, 2009). There is an inextricable link between a leader and a
nation's image such that crises surrounding its leader impact the
country's reputation negatively (Pang, Damayanti, & Woon, 2017).
For instance, Russia's statesponsored homophobia(Burton, 2017)
put a damper on Russia's hosting of the World Cup. Algerian president
Abdelaziz Bouteflika's harassment of media and political opponents
(Algeria urged to end,2016) and his failures as a leader tarnished
his country's reputation (GhanemYazbeck, 2016). Both are listed as
least reputable countries (Joseph, 2017).
International reputation is constructed by opinions of interna-
tional stakeholders (Kang & Yang, 2005), and intrinsic to their opinions
is the concept of global power. Global power, identified as Nye's
(1990) soft power,is defined as the ability of one country to get
other countries to want what it wants.Critics, including Nye (2018),
have attributed U.S. president Donald Trump's lack of diplomacy and
brash behavior as some of the reasons for the decline of its reputation
and soft power (Bershidsky, 2018; Brands, 2018). Similarly,
Philippines' president Rodrigo Roa Duterte's erratic behavior,
Received: 9 April 2018 Revised: 6 September 2018 Accepted: 27 September 2018
DOI: 10.1002/pa.1883
J Public Affairs. 2019;19:e1883.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1883
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of11

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT