It’s been 13 years since I felt that way.

We were in a plane between Lincoln and Omaha Nebraska during another week-long tour of some remote part of the US during the presidential campaign in 1996.  That year, we did 74 cities in 28 states in 10 weeks.  And we did it without data-enabled cell phones.   Really, how did we survive?

On that flight, I got a text page (you know, the old fashioned kind, where just a number appears?).  I had to wait until I landed to call the office and then was dispatched to a near-by fax machine (next to the news director’s desk, mind you) at the local TV station where we were doing an interview.

My principal, the candidate’s daughter, had just overwritten the daily AP news story with the fact that she disagreed with her dad’s position on abortion.  I was sitting there when she said it (in Lincoln) and by the time we got to Omaha, we were headline news.    The fax explained the details but fortunately, that station didn’t read their AP feed to know to ask her any questions about it.  A lucky break.  Today it would have been tweeted 100 times within seconds of it breaking.

We worked tirelessly to defend, massage, control, and explain her position.  It wasn’t exactly in conflict with his, it just differed slightly (we lost that year, so I guess it doesn’t matter too much now those details!).

While I have been a part of managing many many crisis moments since then, it wasn’t until about 10 days ago when I awoke to a blog post that was slathering my reputation, and that of someone with even more reputation in town, claiming we were mis-using our role in the organizing of TEDxColumbus.   None of it was true.  Not one word.

This hardly compares with overwriting an AP story about abortion, but the ensuing energy required to fix it was no different.  I spent the rest of my day distilling the facts, assuring the TED leadership these claims were not true, working in partnership with my colleague, Nancy Kramer, to reverse the damage that was beginning to be done by people thinking we were profiting from this event (we can’t, it will barely pay for itself!).

Nancy has written a fabulous post relating this and the benefits of social media - and how the conversation and chatter helped to self-correct the situation after we made our cases public.  I echo her comments but add a few more to the mix from a crisis communication position.

This event, which we’ve spent endless time and energy on, was about to be destroyed before it even got down the aisle.  It needed immediate response.

The accusations were so far from being true, it ignited emotion in my mind.  But it needed a level, non-emotional response, sticking with the facts.

And then we needed to walk away.  The conversation went on for a few more days, literally, among others who joined in the chatter.  But we said our peace and as Nancy aptly stated, the situation corrected itself.

One lesson I learned in politics is if you are explaining, you are losing.  In this case, the author of the post found himself overexplaining with many more entries, and even calling me to render an apology.

Even in the world with mobile applications, social media and online dialogue, this episode was helpful to remind us some of our core basic communication principles still do apply.

And I hope it’s another 13 years before I feel that way again.