"Control the narrative!"  - few expressions have become more fashionable in contemporary communication and leadership than this one.

It is repeated in boardrooms, ministerial offices, crisis management teams, corporate communication departments and media commentary with almost unquestioned certainty.

Whenever an issues emerges, the advice is remarkable consistent: move quickly, define the issue before others do and control the narrative.

This is increasingly accepted orthodoxy raises an importation question. What if the pursuit of narrative has begun to eclipse the pursuit of truth?

The language itself reveals this deeper problem.

Narratives are interpretations of events. They are not the events themselves.

When organisations become preoccupied with controlling a narrative before establishing the facts, communication risks becoming an exercise in perception management rather than responsible leadership.

The objective subtly shifts from helping stakeholders understand reality to encouraging them to accept a preferred version of it.

This represents one of the most significant ethical challenges confronting contemporary public relations.

For decades, crisis communication has also been built around another familiar proposition; i.e. that organisations must "build trust" during periods of adversity.

Trust undoubtedly matters. It always will.

But the notion that trust can somehow be created once a crisis has emerged misunderstands both the nature of trust and the strategic role of communication.

Trust is not manufactured through carefully crafted messages, media interviews or social media posts.

Nor is it a reputational asset that can be withdrawn from the organisational bank when circumstances become difficult.

Trust is the cumulative outcome of organisational behaviour. It is earned through ethical leadership, consistent decision-making, transparency, accountability and the willingness to engage honestly with stakeholders long before a crisis occurs.

When a crisis arrives, communication does not create trust.

It exposes the quality of the trust relationship that already exists.

This distinction is fundamental.

Too often communication plans continue to treat trust as something that can be restored through messaging.

Contemporary research and professional practice suggest something quite different.

Trust is dynamic. It is continuously reinforced, or diminished, by organisational behaviour. Communication can explain that behaviour, provide context and demonstrate accountability, but it cannot compensate for its absence.

James Grunig's Excellence Theory positioned public relations as a strategic management function rather than a publicity activity. Robert Heath argued that issues management should improve organisational decision-making before problems escalate into crises. Shannon Bowen's work on ethics reminds us that communication professionals have responsibilities extending beyond organisational advocacy to the broader public interest. W. Timothy Coombs' research demonstrates that effective crisis communication depends upon responses that are aligned with facts, stakeholder expectations and organisational responsibility. Dr Jim Mahoney's work highlights the importance of the principles strategic communication planning. 

Collectively, this body of scholarship points to a simple, but frequently overlooked conclusion.

The greatest value of public relations is not its ability to influence what people think.

It is its capacity to help organisations behave in ways that deserve public confidence.

That is why the profession's contribution should never be measured by whether it succeeded in controlling the narrative.

It should be measured by whether it ensured that organisational communication reflected reality, supported informed public understanding and protected the credibility upon which enduring reputation depends.

In this respect, public relations practitioners are guardians of organisational credibility.

Their influence, however, comes responsibility.

The practitioner who simply asks: “How can we communicate this?” is performing only part of the role.

The more important question is:

"Should we communicate this now, and is what we are communicating capable of being defended?"

This requires professional courage.

There will be circumstances where senior executives want immediate reassurance statements, where political leaders want rapid responses and where organisations feel pressure to demonstrate control.

The ethical practitioner must sometimes provide difficult advice.

They must be willing to say:

"The facts are incomplete."

"The investigation must continue."

"We should acknowledge what we know, but not speculate about what we do not."

Such advice may not always satisfy immediate reputational concerns.

But it protects long-term legitimacy.

For more on Trust and Narrative Control contact Robert Masters AM at: robertm@robertmasters.com.au

-0-