DF2 6125 Crisis Communication. Comment on these two post.

Comment on these two post as if you were me with 100 WORDS and DO NOT COMPARE THE POSTS:
Rachael Aldridge
Week 2. Crisis Communications:
We have the benefit of hindsight with this case now, as we can look back at the coverage itself to analyze what went right and what went wrong. In the hours and days after the tragedy, incorrect information began leaking out to the public about the suspects, or lack thereof. This begs the question of, how is this information being disseminated to the public?
While free speech must be protected, there is also the duty to make certain that the information being given to the public is correct and whole. In this case, we must weigh whether it would be dangerous and damaging for the investigation to bar this individual from attending the press conference, or would it be of benefit to allow them in? If the risk of letting in a known conspiracy blogger who regularly allows false information to color their writing into the conference outweighs the benefit of reaching their audience with the false information, then I believe they should be denied entry.
To the opposite point, allowing this person in would mean that the information given would be spread more quickly, and it would be seen as honoring this blogger's right to information, as well as their right to free speech. Barring this person from the meeting would certainly mean that, though the information would be more likely to be correct, there would also be the chance that the blogger would go online to spread the news that they had not been allowed into the conference.
In either case there are benefits and losses, but in my personal opinion, barring the blogger would be my first instinct. But, looking at all angles of the problem, it would be better to allow the blogger in to spread information that is being given. This would also need to show that there is a good media team in place to monitor information being spread online, so that any false information that may be shared can be quickly stopped and corrected. This would be the time to be proactive instead of reactive, as the country is already knocked back from the tragedy. Being ready for anything that may come from sources known to be incorrect shows an awareness and attention to what could be seen as threats.
Laura Kissane
Week 2. Crisis Communications:
The Boston Marathon Bombings were a horrific tragedy. This event affected people all over the world, not just the city of Boston. A child lost his life, runners lost their limbs, and loved ones are still grieving today. This specific event was more than just a scandal or accident; it was an attack on our country. Furthermore, this first press conference could happen before they even caught the bomber, as he was missing for quite a few hours after the event. Because of the level of devastation this event caused and the number of people who continued to be terrified for several hours after; I would hope that most media outlets would attend the first press conference in hopes to gain more information and figure out ways to help catch the terrorist at hand.
As such, I would invite the online media outlet. In my invitation, I would clearly state that we need everyone in attendance to listen carefully and be respectful as the victims, their families, the city of Boston, and the USA are still in need of answers. In my personal opinion, the more eyes and ears on the story – the better, especially when you are still missing the culprit. “Refusing to talk to reporters will not make the story go away” (Slide 20, Week 2 Crisis Communication PowerPoint). Refusing to let this reporter into the press conference could potentially cause other stories to be spun, which was the last thing anyone needed after a tragedy like this. The online media outlet should get the first-hand, real and raw coverage of what is going on so they are able to report on it accurately instead of speculating.