It goes by different names, but at its heart boils down to one thing, telling the truth, but also revealing the process by which you came to that.
It's a mighty interesting conundrum if you're any one of the ff:
a) businesses/ brands contemplating blogs into your realm
b) Managing crisis management
c) A media/broadcast channel.
We all know so much more than we did ten years ago ( media literacy) and have a means to talk to one another en masse ( unlike ten years ago) that if you're trying to bury, suffocate, nudge something to the side because it does you no favours, forget it.
It used to be the preserve of whistle blowers and leakers but now the means to disseminate info do away with grand titles of old. "I'm simply telling you what it's like", guv "and this time I am being honest, cuz i blog it".
In the last couple of weeks we've seen a slate of it: RDF-Queen's miscalculated sequence shots, ITV's miscalculated press release over its Paul Watson's documentary.
And no doubt there will be as many more in a year as there was likely in five.
While back I did a big job for one of the humanitarian agencies. Persuasively deny, hold your ground and be prepared to back it up if neccessary. Politicans are accustomed to this in the counter. You ask a difficult question and they side step it with their own. The reporter pulls em back.
But now we are a nation of sleuths. How do the big PRs advise their clients on damage limitations? Simple, in my book, be honest and own up. Mea culpa; resistance really is futle Mr Borg. Offer solutions why it won't happen again, reveal the process which enabled it to occur, and offer extreme transparency as a fall back to the audience
Here's the editor of one of the UK's most influential news programmes, Newsnight shedding some more light on Extreme Transparency when I caught up with him some week's back. Peter Barron's trials for blogs et al has for the moment come to and end.