I guess I'd say, with a smile on my face, "Mister Nifong, you've picked on the wrong families. You've picked on the wrong families that you've indicted; you've picked on the wrong family of the Duke lacrosse team. You've picked on the wrong family of Duke University, and you will pay every day for the rest of your life."

-Rae Evans, mother of David Evans, Duke lacrosse player accused of sexual assault

THE DUKE LACROSSE CASE: NAILING THE PROSECUTOR

The landmark crisis of 2007 is the saga of three members of the Duke University lacrosse team whose passionate counteroffensive against false rape charges should replace the outdated Tylenol tampering legend as the catalyst for reexamining how we think about damage control. The Duke affair teaches us that it is possible for the purported villains to transform themselves into the victims, and that self-styled vindicators can turn out to be the true villains. The cast characters did not switch places until the accused mounted a legal and public defense that many in the academic and media communities assumed they didn't deserve.

While the Duke lacrosse case may not be the template that applies to all crises, there are lessons to be learned about how and why attack targets survive.

In the early months of the case, Durham, North Carolina District Attorney Michael Nifong, who was running for reelection, owned the primal narrative: spoiled, rich white preppies gang-raping a black woman. He referred to the accused as "a bunch of hooligans" whose "daddies could buy them expensive lawyers." On Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, he said "There's no doubt in my mind that she was raped . . ." As an unnamed New York Times alumnus said in a media exposé about the case: "You couldn't invent a story so precisely tuned to the outrage frequency of the modern, metropolitan, bien-pensant journalist."

It had all the makings of a Hollywood release: a minority rape victim (a casting director might recommend Halle Berry), obscenely privileged attackers (think the cast of The O.C.), a lush university setting in need of community healing (pick your elite Eastern campus), and an outraged, media-savvy DA (Tommy Lee Jones, perhaps). The Duke lacrosse coach was forced to resign and the university president cancelled the remainder of the 2006 lacrosse season. The New Black Panthers marched on Durham. Reverend Jesse Jackson echoed "something happened," and Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition promised to pay the tuition of the purported victim, Crystal Gail Mangum.

Throughout the investigation, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, who were widely portrayed in the press and on the Internet as out-of-control preppies, vehemently proclaimed their innocence. Said Evans before his surrender to police: "You have all been told some fantastic lies, and I look forward to watching them unravel in the weeks to come." The charges were dropped because of irrefutable evidence that the Duke players were innocent, not to mention that Mangum was catastrophically unbelievable. Her story repeatedly changed. Among other things, she initially claimed she had been raped by twenty white men. She subsequently reduced the number to the three accused. Her chronology repeatedly changed, as did her descriptions of her assailants.

In an exhaustive forensic sweep by the allied defense team's investigators found evidence including time-stamped photos of the "victim" smiling in front of the alleged crime scene at the precise time when she was supposedly gang-raped, phone company records that were "triangulated" showing that Finnerty wasn't even at the location of the alleged crime, testimony of a cab driver that put Seligmann at a completely different location; time-stamped photos of Seligmann at an ATM machine at the time of the crime, and a thorough fingerprint analysis showing that one of the men had never been in the room in question. Reports surfaced that in 1996 Mangum had claimed she had been raped by three white men but she never followed through with the authorities to provide specifics.

The players' defense lawyers repeatedly approached Nifong to present exculpatory evidence and were rebuffed-the narrative locomotive had left the station. While the facts weren't on his side, the legal pundits overwhelmingly were, the talking-head programs stocking the lineup with "experts" that validated the Animal House idiom. Joseph Cheshire, Evans's defense attorney, said, "I came to the decision that we had to win the media war, and that if we didn't win the media war, we would be in trial." Which, given the witch-hunt climate, would have been a disaster.

Much of the defense strategy included a media campaign, which can be a very high-stakes device. Specifically, the suspects encouraged CBS's 60 Minutes to investigate the case and even appeared on the program to defend themselves, the latter being a tactic that defense attorneys usually dismiss as being too risky. 60 Minutes, which tends to side with victims and supposed vindicators like Nifong (and against the rich and powerful), was sympathetic to the defendants, so strong was their case. The defense's counteroffensive surely triggered the involvement of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, whose Wade Smith announced "No DNA material from any young man tested was present on the body of this complaining witness. . . . We hope with this, Mr. Nifong will announce he is not going to pursue this case further."

In April 2007, just over a year after the arrests, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped the charges. Cooper declared Nifong's actions a "tragic rush to accuse." Nifong was later charged and convicted of criminal contempt, disbarred, and sentenced to serve one day in prison. The families of Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans have filed a $30 million suit against the city of Durham, Nifong, and thirteen officials associated with the case.

What are the damage control lessons of the Duke fiasco?
First and foremost, the lacrosse players had a clear and demonstrable alternative narrative (for the record, most crisis subjects don't): They were provably innocent and their accuser was not credible. Being wrongly accused, especially in a high-profile case where there is proof, is the obvious foundation of a powerful defense. The lacrosse players' counteroffensive shifted the cast characters: They had become the victims and their accuser a villain. Furthermore, the story's "vindicator"-the theoretically impartial champion of justice, DA Nifong-also was transformed into the primary villain. The new narrative byte: top cop goes to slammer for duke lax lynching.

Second, the lacrosse players' families had the will to fight. One of the most important factors in surviving a crisis is the capacity to "go the distance" in a withering battle that has no end in sight. Many individuals and institutions talk tough at the onset of hostilities but cannot tolerate a struggle, especially one that doesn't appear to be making any progress. The Duke lacrosse's players' families, however, were properly motivated. The cost of not fighting back was disastrous-the ruined lives of promising young men.

Finally, the players had the resources and savvy to fight back. Evans' mother was a lobbyist and his father was an attorney at a blue-chip law firm. The family had lived in the nation's capital and had undoubtedly witnessed their share of Washington political witch hunts and their attendant lawyers, investigators, and media consultants. If they didn't know the damage control game themselves, they had access to those who did. Regrettably, there is often a correlation between deep pockets and the ability to defuse a crisis or attack. Attorneys, media consultants, and private investigators are expensive. Whether it's an individual or a corporation under siege, one of the first questions that should be asked before adopting a strategy is whether the necessary resources are available to fight back.

Without an aggressive, well-funded, and well-publicized counteroffensive, neither law enforcement nor the media would have revisited the initial storyline. Put differently, in the You-Tube era, attack targets must do the legwork that during simpler times would have been undertaken by government authorities and the "old" media.

Despite the lacrosse players' vindications, and regardless of how they fare in their civil suit, they will spend their lives on the receiving end of whispers characterizing them as the formerly accused Duke rapists. One can never, especially with the proliferation of the Internet, neutralize all hostile voices, but Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans are free men with bright prospects, which is why our discipline is called "damage control," not "damage disappearance."

THE CRISIS ROUNDUP

Since the original publication of Damage Control, there has been a veritable potpourri of crises in business, sports, entertainment, and politics. What many of these crises have in common is a base, lowest-common-denominator quality. They are fiascos that emerged not as a result of dogged journalistic exposés, but from trafficking in voyeuristic, self-sustaining allegations on Internet blogs, late-night talk shows, and in the most tabloid of news media. Call it the YouTube storyline-the primal narrative that everybody intuitively "gets" in a few seconds, true or not: right-wing senator snagged in gay sex bathroom bust; nfl star tortured puppies; thousands stranded in jetblue "flying coffins"; chinese dolls choke kids.

Not everyone facing crisis in recent months fared as well as the Duke lacrosse players ultimately did. What follows is a roundup of recent public relations fiascoes and an assessment of how their subjects are likely to fare in the near future. An "up" arrow means that the subject is likely to be back in business. An "even" arrow means that the subject's situation is still in flux. A "down" arrow means that the subject is likely to remain in crisis and not recover any time soon from his or her original sin.

Don Imus ƒ Shock jock called Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" and lost his gig on CBS radio and MSNBC for his racial faux pas despite a veritable road show of apology to, among others, the Reverend Al Sharpton who predictably didn't forgive him. The Imus case proved once again the limits of apology as a damage control tactic. Nevertheless, he needed to apologize to the Rutgers team-and only the Rutgers team-as the price of entry for his redemption. Imus disappeared for six months, but at this writing, it appears he'll reemerge in a new incarnation with ABC radio. Sometimes, the simple act of vanishing for a while is a better crisis management technique than all of the media campaigns Madison Avenue can conjure up. Imus is still entertaining and controversial, which makes for great broadcasting.

Michael Vick ƒ The Atlanta Falcons quarterback pleaded guilty to charges of operating an illegal dog fighting ring, which included the torture and execution (via hanging, drowning, and electrocution) of some of these animals. Vick apologized (and found Jesus) amid incendiary public outrage, was exiled from the NFL, and lost his huge contract and blue-chip endorsements that had made him one of the biggest earners in pro sports. He still faces federal charges. Vick is headed to prison and has only one hope: Come out a humbled man who has paid his debt and pray he retains the athletic skills to make him attractive to another NFL team.

Marion Jones ƒ The Olympic track star apologized via letter to friends and family for steroid use and pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents. She has surrendered the five medals she won at the Sydney Olympics, and her once-hot endorsements have gone cold and will almost certainly never return. Her redemption can only occur not as an athlete, but by teaching a new generation that our win-at-any-cost ethic can come at a terrible price.

Senator David Vitter ƒ When Vitter (R-LA) was exposed as a patron of the notorious "DC Madam" Deborah Jean Palfrey, he copped to "a serious sin," held a news conference with his wife, and remains in office. The story died down comparatively quickly despite a renewed national debate about conservative public officials who don't practice what they preach. Vitter was not accused of a crime and his escapades were evidently heterosexual, which, political correctness notwithstanding, takes some of the sting out of his sin. His retention of his office is a huge win, but his future clout is a question mark.

Senator Larry Craig ƒ A few months after Craig's (R-ID) arrest for soliciting sex from a male undercover police officer in an airport rest room, the story went public. Craig pleaded guilty, he claimed in a news conference, because he panicked at the arrest and had not consulted with an attorney. He said he would resign shortly. He also audaciously explained his alleged in-stall encounter by saying he had a "wide stance," which is why he tapped the police officer's feet. The news media ignited, the subtext of the outrage being that Craig, a conservative Republican, was a hypocrite who supported legislation hostile to homosexuals. Soon, Craig reversed his earlier promise to resign, and decided he would seek to have his guilty plea thrown out, remaining in the Senate pending that decision. Even when a judge upheld his guilty plea, Craig said he would stay in the Senate until the end of his term in 2009, infuriating his Republican colleagues who viewed him as radioactive. Despite his hunker down, zig-zag approach to crisis management, Craig remains in office-no small achievement-but is powerless and has entered the pantheon of sex scandals beside the J. Edgar Hoover-in-a-dress legend. Craig's only viable alternative would have been to fight the charges from the outset. This, however, would not have averted torrential media scrutiny and may, in fact, have made the scandal even worse with day-by-day updates in his case. The senator had no good options.

JetBlue ƒ Low-cost airliner JetBlue apologized to customers for canceling 1,100 flights during a February 2007 snowstorm, which stranded thousands of passengers in snow-covered airplanes (an irate passenger described it as like being trapped in a coffin) on airport runways for as much as ten hours. JetBlue reimbursed customers and issued a passengers' "Bill of Rights," which "spells out the specific compensation, in the form of electronic travel vouchers, that our customers will receive if they are inconvenienced due to a delay or cancellation that is within JetBlue's control." CEO David Neeleman, who deftly handled a hostile media, nevertheless stepped down a few months after the fiasco, a testament that in a crisis nothing is more powerful than the need to blame somebody. The stock, at this writing, is down from its January 2007 high, but stabilizing. JetBlue is wrestling with the consequences of having grown too quickly, but some analysts are bullish on the company's potential performance in 2008.

Mattel ƒ The toy manufacturer initiated a series of voluntary recalls after some of its products manufactured in China were deemed unsafe by consumer groups and regulators. CEO Bob Eckert apologized at a congressional hearing and posted a videotaped message to consumers on Mattel's Web site promising to identify potential product faults, ranging from small parts that could pose choking hazards to lead paint that children could swallow, and fix them. The company did the right thing, which set the foundation for a recovery in the long-term.

Chinaƒ After a ham-fisted start blaming American product designs versus its own manufacturing practices, China has started to realize that if the country is to compete in the long-term, its leaders have to bring its safety standards into the twenty-first century. This is a multiyear proposition and the Chinese government cannot institute huge systemic changes overnight.

Alberto Gonzales ƒ After months of hunkering down amid reports of a campaign by the Department of Justice to fire politically uncooperative U.S. attorneys, the White House accepted the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales. During blistering congressional hearings, Gonzales appeared overwhelmed. His answers struck many as the kind one might expect from a low-level bureaucrat, not America's sheriff. In a climate where accusations of lying have become a core part of the anti-Bush narrative, Gonzales's damage control approach didn't work. He'll do fine in private practice, but his tenure will be forever tinged with disgrace. Could Gonzales have handled the scandal better once it broke? Conventional wisdom suggests that greater candor might have earned him a pass from Congress, but we doubt it. Such disclosure would have almost certainly required Gonzales to admit to forcing out targeted U.S. attorneys for political reasons. Such an admission would have swiftly led to his ouster. Perhaps Gonzales's only other option would have been to step down earlier in the process in order to avoid the damage to his reputation that resulted from the hearings.

Bush on the Iraq War ƒ Americans don't like wars, we like war movies-fast, decisive, and the good guys don't get hurt. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, the ostensible goal of the war, and while Saddam was neutralized, there is no stable new regime. There is a bloody civil war and a seemingly never-ending stream of casualties, which, in contemporary public opinion means somebody botched the job. World opinion is heavily antiwar. The math on wartime communications is simple: when you're winning a war, you get "good PR"; when you're losing you don't. Contrary to our culture's spin-worship, slick communications programs are not the antidote to terrible real-world events. The first rule of effective damage control is having a realistic appreciation of what important audiences can stomach. The Bush team's plan was anchored in utopian notions that Americans would be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring democracy to Iraq (we weren't) and that Iraqis would appreciate the United States as liberators. It's hard to be grateful, at least in the short term, when your country erupts into civil war. If history vindicates Bush, that vindication is many years away.

Bill Belichick ƒ The brilliant New England Patriots coach apologized for "misinterpreting" NFL rules amid accusations that he authorized the videotaping of the strategy signals of opposing teams, including during a Super Bowl game. He paid a $500,000 fine while denying that he had actually used the videos to gain an advantage in games. Despite the requisite cries for him to fess up, Belichick didn't comment beyond his craftily-worded I'm-not-really-sorry "apology." And he may just have been right. The NFL destroyed the telltale tapes, which guaranteed, among other things, they will never appear on YouTube.

Healthcare Industry ƒ While Michael Moore's film Sicko didn't have the shock value of his earlier anti-Bush screed Fahrenheit 911, it received widespread media attention and reinforced the twin hot buttons that spell trouble for U.S. healthcare providers and drug companies: how such an affluent country can have so many uninsured citizens and the exorbitant cost of doctors and drugs. The healthcare industry has largely been in hunker down mode in response to Sicko, recognizing that one doesn't win "debates" against demagogues-especially those who moderates agree with on this issue. While some industry groups criticized the film, think tanks and politicians did most of the anti-Moore heavy lifting. The anti-healthcare industry sentiment is so venomous that even the most assertive communications campaign will not be an antidote to a deeply entrenched and broadly supported reform apparatus.

Hillary Clinton ƒ Clinton's capacity to weather blistering portrayals of her as being a cold, greedy, left-wing, Machiavellian schemer over a sixteen year period is paying off. Clinton has been so savagely demonized that the public is beginning to discover a contrast that would have been unheard of a few short years ago: She has been an able legislator with a gift for soberly articulating views on meaningful issues. Clinton has effectively tacked to the political center and, to the horror of Republicans, is capable of alternatively conveying vulnerability, humanity and, most importantly, resilience. The conservative crusade against Clinton worked in the 1990s, but may end up backfiring in the following decade, fulfilling her dream of being the first woman, and second Clinton, in the Oval Office.

RICHARD JEWELL'S DAMAGE CONTROL LEGACY

It is appropriate to conclude by observing the death of falsely accused Atlanta Olympic bomber on August 29, 2007 of heart disease and diabetes. The 1996 bombing killed one woman and injured one hundred (a cameraman died of a heart attack while covering the explosion). Jewell was forty-four. Elusive bomber Eric Robert Rudolph was arrested and convicted of this crime and abortion clinic bombings after years at large. Jewell was later lauded as a hero who saved lives by clearing the crowd away from the bomb when he spotted the suspicious backpack.

Jewell eventually reached financial settlements with the New York Post and NBC for suggesting he was the bomber. His case against the Atlanta Journal Constitution was pending at the time of his death.

Jewell's legacy is a stark reminder that individuals and institutions are increasingly vulnerable to the caprice of a culture that thrives on primal narratives and their complicit technologies. Jewell taught us why muscular counteroffensives merit a page or two in one's damage control playbook.

To read the whole book please visit your local or online bookstore. For bulk orders please see our "How to Order section.