Some might say it depends upon the nature of the crisis. If it is of national importance then it may be best to get as many minds working on it as possible. But what if it is so important it has global ramifications?
Perhaps a few highly qualified individuals (a 'Small Society') are better off discussing the issue, especially in situations that threaten world peace or might cause large-scale loss of life.
Does the Big Society have the media savvy to handle those? Saying the wrong thing could turn a crisis into a media disaster. Nine times out of ten, when faced with a situation in which blame is to be apportioned, it's best to put your hand up to it.
Sharing the problem publicly is surely the right thing to do. But occasionally, being more economic with the facts might be the better option. Anyone for the Small Society?
Alan Boyden, group managing director, BCS PR.
