284: The Risks and Realities of a 100% Denial Strategy

In this episode of The PR Breakdown, we take a deep dive into the high-stakes PR strategy of a "100% Denial." This approach has long been used by celebrities, politicians, and public figures when facing serious accusations. But is it still a smart move in today’s social media-driven world?

We explore multiple examples of how this strategy plays out and examine why some public figures—like Garth Brooks, Lizzo, Prince Andrew, and Lance Armstrong—chose the denial route. Is it a legal necessity, or does it invite more trouble down the line? Breaking down why total denial can create significant risks, especially in an age where accountability is amplified through the media and social platforms.

From legal consequences to reputational fallout, this episode highlights how a denial strategy can quickly backfire without care and empathy.

Mentioned in This Episode:

• Garth Brooks' legal team’s denial strategy against sexual assault allegations
• Lizzo's PR crisis over harassment and abuse claims by former dancers
• Prince Andrew’s disastrous 2019 BBC interview about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein
• Lance Armstrong’s decade-long denial of using performance-enhancing drugs
• The risks of aligning solely with legal strategies in public crises

Join Molly on Patreon for even deeper dives into celebrity PR strategies and exclusive live sessions!

Follow Molly for daily updates and more PR insights:

• TikTok: @mollybmcpherson
• Patreon: Patreon.com/mollymcpherson
• Connect with Molly: pillar.io/mollymcpherson

© 2024 The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson

Transcript

Molly: 0:00

Welcome back to the PR Breakdown. I'm Mollie McPherson and today we're exploring a high stakes strategy often used by celebrities and public figures when they face serious accusations. I'm talking about the 100 percent denial. We've seen it over and over again. Accusations are made and the accused responds with a full denial of any wrongdoing. Is this a smart legal move or does it just invite more trouble down the road? Let's explore why the 100 percent denial strategy often seems like the only choice for celebrities and politicians. Let's talk about the pitfalls that it creates and how to navigate it while protecting your legal standing and reputation in case it happens to you. But if you're like me and you watch these cases and you wonder Why go denial even in the face of serious evidence? Now for many listeners, I know you have jobs to manage the company's or a candidate or a CEO's reputation. So it's important that you know how to safely communicate the risks that come with the denial route and the consequences that always follow always. Let's get into it. When accusations fly, public figures often turn to 100 percent denial. For some, it's about protecting their reputation. For others, it's a legal necessity. But while it can work in the short term, there are risks that can cause more harm in the long run. For example, Let's rewind the timeline and land back in August of 2023. We had Lizzo and the allegations of harassment and abuse. The About Damn Time singer was accused by three former dancers of creating a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and weight shaming. These accusations ran counter to her public persona as a champion of body positivity and And at this time, if you followed me on social media, I jumped in in real time because I noticed how dangerous this 100 percent denial strategy was going to be for Lizzo. And if you want to talk about timelines and you want to talk about the Molly timeline for people who've known me for years or worked with me. with me for years, uh, they'll say to me, or they're likely saying it behind my back, too. Why all of a sudden is Molly doing all these interviews? Why do people all of a sudden care about Molly McPherson? It's because I went on TikTok and started talking about it. Lizzo was really the case that landed me more in the public eye. I've certainly done a lot of press, but this was the first case where I was doing serious press. I was doing legacy press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and ABC News. I had the opportunity to talk about Lizzo in a documentary for Nightline. I think being famous puts a target on your back, but I think anyone who's known online, if there's a parasocial relationship that someone has with the public, there's always a risk of something happening. You can still find it online. They sent me down there or actually up there. I was at my daughter's soccer tournament in New Jersey, but it was on September 11th and at that time I was doing an interview about Ashton Kutcher. When I went to Access Hollywood, this is when my name really got associated with this type of behavior. I find it interesting why this 100 percent denial route just doesn't work nowadays. And it's because of social media. Now, the reason why Lizzo chose denial is because likely it was at the behest of her legal team. Lizzo's brand is built around empowerment, self love, body positivity. It's reasonable to assume from a legal perspective that admitting to any of these accusations and claims against her would have severely damaged her image and would have brought a legal liability. But her legal team decided to favor the legal aspect of it. Now her team was headed by Marty Singer, well known Hollywood fixer slash attorney. So many celebrities Use him think Charlie Sheen think Bill Cosby, but I think using Marty Singer has a massive flaw This is a guy who is still living by the victories of the past Where he could bulldog his way into any case into any Reputation situation with a potential jury pool. He just assumed that he'd be able to fix it probably editorially as well What Marty Singer I think is starting to learn is that? Or if he hasn't figured it out, Lizzo certainly has. Her financial advisor certainly has. Because her reputation and her stake in the music industry has tanked. She's probably lost a lot of money because they chose the legal route. Why I think this was particularly wrong is because this wasn't a case that there was a threat of her going to jail. You know, the punitive nature of it was just going to be money, and yeah, a reputation hit, but she absolutely could have admitted to part of the blame. But instead, they went full denial. In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs made reasonable accusations about how they were treated. However, Lizzo's attorney, Singer, Wanted to show a contradiction to what was being said. He called it a bogus lawsuit that will be proven by the facts. Here's a few things that she posted on Instagram, which served as her official media statement. Quote, these last few days have been gut wrenchingly difficult and overwhelmingly disappointing. My work ethic, morals, and respectfulness have been questioned. My character has also been criticized. Usually I choose not to respond to false allegations, but these are as unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed. I'm going to end quote right there. I don't think if you know Lizzo, just even on the surface, no one's questioning her work ethic. No one's questioning her morals or respectfulness. In these types of statements, that's what they want to point to. The egregious behavior is that the public is actually questioning her work ethic. When you use language that blames the victim, that serves as a red flag that there is cover. They know there is guilt. They are going there. The full denial route. The denial strategy likely stems from this need to avoid further lawsuits. It's understandable. The feeling is a partial admission might open the door to additional claims. However, by publicly denying the claims and calling them false and outrageous, Lizzo positioned herself as the victim of these quote disgruntled former employees. But these former employees Dancers. The public is more likely to empathize with dancers, not a multi million dollar singer. And the accusations of weight shaming directly contradict her message of self love, making a total denial essential to preserve her core values and fan base, sure, but it could have been messaged in the right way. That she has higher standards. That maybe she's putting too much the weight shaming on others because she's not facing it herself, a woman who's of larger size. There's so many ways that she could have messages showing not just vulnerability but also truth. So yes, she did avoid an additional legal trap by admitting fault. However, it did not help maintain the loyalty of her fan base, many of whom aligned with that body positive messaging. The case highlighted the difficulty of reconciling public persona with private actions and her denial was scrutinized more intensely. And that is the risk. And it's a big risk because further details will always emerge on social media from other people. And in this case, the dancers themselves, they went on the media circuit. They did a media tour to defend themselves. Here's what she could have shown instead. Here's Lizzo with the answer. I think vulnerability is sexy. I think vulnerability is extremely powerful. That's why, you know, you see me in my most vulnerable state. Show vulnerability. In her statement, she talks about being an artist who's always passionate about what she does. She takes her music and her performances seriously. Because at the end of the day, I only want to put out the best art that represents me and my fans. Quote. That came from her statement. But what she should have said is what comes with that passion and hard work and high standards that I set on myself. I set it on other people. And sometimes I lose my way and I should understand that other people aren't going to have the same standards that I do or their standards just could be different. I need to respect their standards. These were great dancers who did exactly what they needed to do, but I was the one who expected too much. You're not going to take a massive legal hit. Maybe you pay out a check of your millions that you already have, but people will respond to that vulnerability. That's what she should have shown. Another example in the timeline brings us all the way up to last week, where I discussed how Garth Brooks was hit with a lawsuit alleging sexual assault by a makeup artist and a hairstylist. The accusation was not just damaging to his career, but also to his reputation as a family oriented country music star. And it also affected his wife, Trisha Yearwood, also a famous popular country singer, successful. Now her reputation is hanging in the balance as well. Garth Brooks has built a legacy as a good guy. in country music. His denial was crucial for preserving this public image, and his legal team's decision to deny the accusations likely aimed to prevent further legal claims and limit the damage. But if you read what is being said about him by the accuser named Jane Roe in the legal papers, Garth Brooks came out and named his accuser. He is using tactics, what it appears to is in an attempt to intimidate. But if you read what he did to this woman, And if it's true, even half of it's true, even if a portion of it is true, it is damaging. So what they need to do is frame all these accusations as baseless and false. So by Brooks maintaining his innocence. He's avoiding admitting to any of this behavior that tarnishes his long standing wholesome image in country music because the accusations are the opposite of wholesome. I read the accusations from the legal documents last week in my live on my Patreon. I do a weekly breakdown, it's like an extension of this podcast, and I read it and the community, it affected the community. I was looking at the chats as I was reading it. It is damaging. So given his private nature, Brooks wants this denial to shield his personal life, too, from more public scrutiny. And what does not help Garth Brooks is, is we're still feeling the effects of the Me Too movement from 2016. So these types of claims, They're heightened now, the sensitivity around it. So they likely felt that a full denial was the only course forward to avoid any severe reputational damage. And any admission might have led to a flood of additional allegations or negative press, something his team was likely to avoid. So it's not easy, but here's the risk, regard. Even if you read these court documents, you know that there's a possibility that he crossed the line with Jane Roe, the victim. I'm not gonna name her even though he has. Even if it wasn't a legal one, let's say we're going to believe what Garth Brooks is saying and that she may have been acting out of indictiveness or looking to exploit the situation for personal or financial gain. Let's say that is true, but a reasonable person would assume that he likely crossed the line somewhere, somewhere with this woman. The risk is where public sentiment falls. While many may have a deep affection for Garth and Tricia, I do. Oh my gosh, who doesn't love Garth Brooks? We talked about that in the chat. The people who grew up with him in a way, like college years, 20s, a lot of people mentioned that they played his song at their wedding, like Friends in Low Places was always played at weddings. It just brings everyone together. I kind of get chills even thinking about memories about that. Everybody does like them, but the public is likely to empathize more with Hairstyles and a makeup artist earning an average salary that everyone else makes who claims to have been wronged because so many people in life Have been wronged or they've been bullied by someone who has more power They're not going to empathize with the country music legend and his accomplished wife who just sold their house for over three million dollars And to say all that happened in the days before the lawsuit came to light Next case, Prince Andrew. Now there are very serious allegations of sexual abuse involving Virginia Guffray. She claims she was trafficked to him by Jeffrey Epstein when she was 17 years old. Guffray's accusations were part of a larger scandal involving Jeffrey Epstein, Glenn Maxwell, who was Who has been convicted and she is currently serving an extensive prison sentence in New York. But he was a convicted sex offender and he had ties to a number of powerful individuals. And Andrew's involvement with Guffray became a major focus of public scrutiny, prompting his eventual response through a 2019 BBC interview that would further intensify his involvement. This controversy. Now, why would Prince Andrew choose denial? Prince Andrew's denial was a calculated move, no doubt. And as any admission could have had a devastating consequence, not just for him, but for the British monarchy. He was a senior royal who was facing a high stakes decision, choosing to publicly deny all allegations in an attempt to To protect his standing and that of his families was important, particularly what was going on with his family. Prince Charles, all the stories come out about how he treated Princess Diana, Princess Diana's sons, what the falling out that they had, Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle. There was such a spotlight on the royal family and it wasn't a good one. This made things worse, and as all this was happening, Queen Elizabeth was still alive, so his mother was very involved. Emily Maitlis, so she's the BBC anchor who conducted this now infamous interview that was captured in the Netflix series Scoop. You have to watch the series. It delves into the behind the scenes events leading up to this interview, and the series offers insight into how the interview was arranged, the missteps taken by Andrew's team, And the eventual fallout. It is a must watch for anyone interested in the details of the most disastrous. It's a must watch for anyone interested in the details of one of the most disastrous media interviews in recent memory. But something that she reflect, but something that she reflected on after the interview is that Andrew's decision to go full denial. And some of the things and claims that he made in this interview. May have been influenced by his desire to protect his daughter Beatrice because she was getting married and he may have wanted to address the scandal ahead of her wedding so it wouldn't overshadow the celebration. So in this interview titled Andrew the problem prince, this maitless who interviewed him noted. It's the first time that it crossed her mind that maybe he wasn't doing it for the family. He wasn't doing it for all the other reasons. He was just doing it for Beatrice. But what did he do in the interview? And if you watch scoop and believe what's happening behind the scenes, he did not prepare properly and also he allowed his ego to carry him a lot further than it should had. He had bizarre explanations and complete denial that did not answer questions but only raised more. His claim that he couldn't recall ever meeting Frey directly contradicted a widely circulated photograph of the two of them together, and he asserted that it was photoshopped. Additionally, he said, there's a slight problem with, with, with, with, with the sweating. Um, because, uh, I have a peculiar medical condition, which is that I don't sweat. Of course that was met with public skepticism and ridicule frankly. So instead of clearing his name his statements appeared evasive and it reinforced the public suspicion about his involvement with Epstein and Gouffre and Ghislaine Maxwell. Why it didn't work and boy, did it backfire. The Jeffrey Epstein connection was dangerous for him. He faced a dilemma that could be described as prison or Prince. Acknowledging any wrongdoing could have led to legal repercussions while outright denial carried the risk of public condemnation. In his case, the latter prevailed. So despite his efforts to discredit the allegations, the backlash was swift. And severe. Andrew was stripped of his military titles and forced to step down from royal duties. And even though the case eventually settled, his reputation suffered irreparable harm. The situation illustrates how a full denial can be risky, especially when public sentiment and evidence begin. The situation illustrates how a full denial can be risky, especially when public sentiment and evidence begins to mount against you. The next example, 1998, Bill Clinton famously denied having an affair with White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. His statement. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Ms. Lewinsky became infamous after the affair was later proven. And yes, I did talk about this two episodes ago, but it's another case where someone went the full denial route. And at that time, Clinton's political career and presidency were at stake. If you were around and boy, do I remember. That time, I remember where I was. I remember where I was even watching these press conferences. To go back in time to the 90s is incredible. And I was thinking back to how I felt. You know, I was younger. I was in my 30s, early 30s then. But I recognized that him admitting to an affair, you know, would have led to a resignation or impeachment. But at the time, The public believed that he did it because all the stories were out there even during the election. If you ever watched the documentary, The War Room, about Clinton's campaign highlighting George Stephanopoulos and, oh my gosh, the raging Cajun. Why am I, James Carville. It, it was such a good documentary, which reminds me, I think I want to watch that again. He was dealing with the quote, bimbo problem. way back when. So people could easily assume that there was probably some truth to what Monica Lewinsky, and it wasn't Monica Lewinsky when she was saying it was Linda Tripp who betrayed Monica Lewinsky. But his legal and political advisors were likely pushing for full denial to navigate the legal risk to avoid these perjury charges. Now, his 100 percent denial was calculated, and at the time, if you remember, it was probably a smart move because what he needed to do was just get through the legal ramifications. Because People already knew that he was a bit randy. He already had a history. He already had a reputation. There were a lot of people out there that probably assumed that he did all this, but they were willing to let him go because after all, he's the president. And even in the 90s, people can think, Oh, okay, but he is a president. And she was young. She was partly her fault because this was a time before me too. And if you live this time, and if you're like me, a woman who worked this time, I worked in Washington DC in the 90s, in Boston, I was not an equal. And I dealt with a lot of crap. I was like a Monica Lewinsky, not a real Monica Lewinsky, not to that extent, but I had to navigate my crap. So people could easily assume what happened. But the risk is that they did not know that there would be a blue dress, the infamous blue dress. So that denial absolutely backfired. Monica Lewinsky, being the young person that she was, what do you do when you go through Transcribed A breakup. Cause that's what it was. It was a breakup. She was hurting. She was rejected. It was a betrayal by Clinton and she found the most vindictive person she could, which was Linda Tripp. They had no idea there was a blue dress. If there wasn't a blue dress, it going a hundred percent denial would have been the right choice for him. But what happens, there was prolonged media coverage. There was intense scrutiny. And despite the damage, Clinton's eventual admission of public apology did help him to retain office. His legacy remains tied to this scandal, and the Clinton case highlights how the initial denials, especially in a political crisis, can lead to more serious consequences if exposed as lies. And I'm going to throw one more in here because it goes back a ways, and we're going back to the 2012s on this one in Lance Armstrong. If you remember him, a seven time tour de France winner denied for years that he used performance enhancing drugs, even as allegations and evidence began to stack up. I just want to make sure, it's not that you don't remember whether that the Indiana hospital room incident occurred, it affirmatively did not take place. How could it have taken place when I've never taken performance enhancing drugs? Lance Armstrong at the time was huge as a brand. I mean this guy was known for having testicular cancer, but he came back to be this incredible athlete and not only was he inspirational athlete. People could get behind him. The brand deals, the money, the power that he had. His brand was built on overcoming cancer and dominating the world of cycling. A denial helped protect his legacy and all of these lucrative sponsorships. It was likely a calculated move to avoid losing his titles as endorsements, which were critical to his image and his income. In fact, they were to all of it. But his 100 percent denial that was consistent over a decade, he was positioning himself as a victim of false allegations of jealousy. His aggressive denials allowed him to maintain his titles and endorsements for years, even as the evidence began to emerge. And it was when the U. S. Anti Doping Agency released this report in 2012 that Armstrong's denial crumbled and it led to his being stripped of his titles and losing major sponsorships. Armstrong's prolonged denials damaged his credibility even more than the doping itself. It was the lying. It was the line that led to the complete fall from grace. Now, he eventually admitted it in an interview with Oprah that provided some redemption, but it came too late to salvage his career. So what can you take away from these high profile cases? If you or your company or someone you work with or a loved one is ever facing a similar situation, you don't need to be a president. A prince, a Tour de France winner. You don't need to be a big country singer and you don't need to be about damn time singer. But you could still be someone who is in the public eye. You could be someone whose legal issue or whatever your scandal is, is happening perhaps in a local newspaper or on social media. A hundred percent denial in this day and age is always the answer. It's risky, always, because it does come with the risk of everyone finding out anyway. So what do you do? One, you should consult legal counsel immediately. So you should consult a lawyer before making any statements, especially in a public crisis. The stakes are too high to act without professional advice, because if you're dealing with a legal situation, you need legal counsel. But in that same effort, maybe even before the call to the lawyer. You need to make sure that there is a reputation management person, a crisis management person, a Molly needs to be a part of those conversations and you need to call Molly at this time. You do not call Molly at the end. Everybody calls me too late. I cannot tell you how many times. I have said in my head or I have said to a client here and there, if you would have called me at this point, we would have done this route. But because you're calling me at this point, we now need to do this route because it's important to be careful with denials. You need a reputation management in there to work with the lawyer. They need to work in harmony. You cannot have a lawyer represent you both legally and reputationally. Because while 100 percent denial might seem like the safest legal route, it can backfire if evidence contradicts your claims. And you know what? Nowadays, there's always evidence. So you want to weigh the risk of total denial versus a more nuanced approach. Next, and what a lot of people in these case studies did not do, they did not show empathy. You can get through these legal tricky situations if you show empathy. Even in your denials, because in many cases, showing empathy for the situation without admitting guilt can soften public perception. Acknowledging the pain or frustration of others can help maintain credibility. That is what is missing in all of those cases. They did not acknowledge the victims. They did not speak about the victims. But in all cases, it was either the victim directly or indirectly. that contributed to the downfall. For Lizzo, it was not just the dancers, but it was all the fans. For Lance Armstrong, it wasn't him just buttressing his claims. He was also losing support from fellow cyclists. It wasn't just envy with them. He was trying to paint them as envious, but he was sullying biking. He was sullying the cycling industry. He was throwing His competitors under the bus. He was throwing teammates under the bus. He was throwing the industry under the bus. And so that's why they did not stand up for him. If you show empathy to not just the victims, but other stakeholders with you, it's going to help you maintain credibility because also transparency is key. If a denial is your strategy, you need to be transparent about the reason behind your actions. Keep the stakeholders informed and never lie about the facts. Garth Brooks. isn't just trying to intimidate this one person. He has to intimidate all the people who believe her. So next, you have to prepare for the long term consequences. Denying everything can lead to prolonged crises. If you get caught in a lie, the damage to your reputation might be far greater. I call that the Lizzo Effect. Then the initial accusation. And lastly, no one to pivot. If new evidence emerges, just be prepared to change course. Denial can't be your own. It can save your reputation in the long run, which will allow you to come back. There is a reason why Lizzo is still in the penalty box. There's a reason why Kevin Spacey is in the penalty box. There's a reason why, yes, Johnny Depp got through his court case, but he lost his career. Yes, he's still working on some projects, but he lost his career. Whether you are a celebrity or you're in the spotlight, the limelight, you're a CEO facing public backlash, or you are someone working for these people, these lessons can guide you through the complexities of crisis communication in times of scandal. If you got something valuable from today's episode, go ahead and hit that subscribe button and leave a review, thank you very much. And hey, share this with someone who's as into PR strategies and crisis communication as we all are, it helps us grow and keeps the conversation going. If you want more real time breakdowns of the latest PR moves and celebrity stunts, you can follow me over on social media. I'm posting daily updates, or semi daily updates, that dive even deeper into what's really happening behind the headlines. I'll Thanks so much for listening. I'll catch you next week for another episode of the PR breakdown. Bye for now.