ESPN's 2013 apology over broadcaster Brent Musburger's on-air comments about Katherine Webb shows a specific crisis PR mistake: apologizing for something the organization did not actually do wrong. 5WPR CEO Ronn Torossian argued at the time that ESPN's apology made the situation worse, not better, by validating criticism the network had no obligation to accept.
What did Brent Musburger say during the broadcast?
Musburger, covering the 2013 Alabama vs. Notre Dame championship game for ESPN, repeatedly commented on the appearance of Katherine Webb, a former Miss Alabama and the girlfriend of Alabama quarterback A.J. McCarron, calling her "beautiful" and "good-looking" on air. The comments drew criticism from viewers who felt the focus on Webb's appearance was inappropriate for a football broadcast, and ESPN issued a public apology stating "we apologize that the commentary in this instance went too far and Brent understands that."
Why did Torossian say ESPN's apology was a mistake?
Torossian said ESPN's apology was a mistake because the network apologized without a clear violation to apologize for. "From a crisis public relations point of view, I think ESPN made a mistake by apologizing for these comments," Torossian said. "I have no idea what they are apologizing for." His argument was not that the comments were beyond criticism, but that an organization should be precise about what it is actually admitting fault for before it apologizes, since a vague or reflexive apology concedes wrongdoing without defining what the wrongdoing was.
What happened to Katherine Webb after the broadcast?
Katherine Webb gained roughly 100,000 Twitter followers during and immediately after the broadcast, and she publicly stated she was flattered by Musburger's comments rather than offended by them. Webb's own response undercut the premise of ESPN's apology: the person the comments were about did not experience them as an attack that required a network to apologize on her behalf.
What does the Musburger case teach about crisis PR?
The Musburger case demonstrates that an apology is not automatically the safest response to public criticism. An organization that apologizes reflexively, before establishing what specifically it did wrong and whether the people directly involved were actually harmed, can create more confusion than the original comments did. Crisis PR works best when a response is built around a clear, defensible account of what happened, not around the fastest way to make critics stop talking.
