Weaponising PR: The High-Stakes Gamble of Leaking Private Evidence
In crisis PR, few decisions are as loaded as whether to release private evidence—voice notes, texts, emails, or videos—to defend a client against public accusations. While it can shift the narrative and provide crucial context, the moment that evidence enters the public domain, control is lost. The story no longer belongs to the person telling it—it belongs to the internet.
In 90% of cases, clients are desperate to release their truth and prove their innocence—who wouldn’t? When your reputation is under attack, the instinct is to fight back immediately. But PR isn’t about what’s fair—it’s about what’s effective. And sometimes, even the truth can backfire.
The other 10%? These are the cases where the evidence is too personal, too humiliating, or damaging in ways that go beyond public perception. In these instances, clients don’t want the truth out—they want me to find another way around it. Either way, there’s an ugly reality to navigate: the general public usually doesn’t care about the truth if it means the drama ends. Or worse, they’ll twist it, ignore it, or refuse to believe it.
People think they’re experts on celebrities, but the truth is, fans and critics alike know jackshit about what these people are actually like behind closed doors. Public figures are very different when there’s no camera on them—yet you’ll see TikTok videos confidently producing the most ridiculous theories, completely missing the mark. That’s why managing public perception is so difficult: people will believe what they want, regardless of reality.
Why Public Figures Feel Forced to Share
The moment an accusation goes public, silence is no longer an option. In today’s culture, if you don’t respond, people assume you’re guilty. The expectation isn’t just to deny the claim—it’s to prove innocence, usually with receipts.
But here’s the brutal truth: people don’t see public figures as human beings. They see their downfall as entertainment. They see cancellation as deserved. What they don’t see is what happens behind closed doors.
I’ve visited clients in their homes where they are completely broken—crying, exhausted, lost. They barely have the energy to function. The amount of times I’ve made tea in their own kitchen because they physically can’t bring themselves to do it is alarming.
This is the reality of being cancelled:
Knowing that if you google your own name, most of what’s being said about you is either a complete lie or out-of-context “evidence.”
Social media flooded with death threats from people who have never met you.
Public friends unfollowing and avoiding you, not because they believe the accusations, but to protect their own image.
Private friends and distant family calling and asking, “Is it true?” Even if they don’t say it outright, you can hear the doubt in their voice.
The overwhelming fear of going outside, being recognised, being filmed, being harassed.
Losing work, future film roles, or brand deals—some of my clients have lost millions of dollars in a matter of days.
The financial stress of legal fees, crisis management, and a career that may never recover.
Imagine living through that and not wanting to fight back. That’s why clients push to release evidence—they want to take back some control, to have something to counter the flood of misinformation. And I get it. But the hard truth is, releasing the evidence doesn’t always work the way they hope.
The Illusion of Control: What Happens When Evidence Goes Public
1. Once It’s Out, It’s Out—Unless We Do It Strategically and Smart
Clients often believe they’re “setting the record straight,” but in reality, they’re handing over ammunition for further scrutiny. They expect the evidence to speak for itself, but the public rarely listens passively. They pick apart every word, every tone shift, every pause.
That’s why, if we do decide to release something, it has to be done strategically and smart. It’s not just about putting out the truth—it’s about controlling how it lands. A rushed, emotionally charged release is almost guaranteed to backfire, but when done properly, it can shape the narrative instead of fueling more chaos.
2. The TikTok Effect: Snippets Become the Story
One of the hardest parts of managing these situations is predicting how evidence will be received. Inside the PR team, emotions run high. We focus on the truth of the evidence, but the public focuses on the parts that fit their narrative.
A TikToker doesn’t need the whole recording—just two seconds that confirm their version of events. A tweet doesn’t need the full email chain—just the one line that sounds bad when taken out of context.
That’s why I have to figure out the worst possible interpretation and subtly cover it in the release to attempt to stop it before it starts. This has to be done in a way that isn’t obvious—because if people feel like they’re being manipulated, they’ll react even worse. It’s a game of psychology: planting enough context to shut down damaging narratives before they can gain traction, without making it look like a defensive over-explanation. If I can predict how something will be misused, I can sometimes cut it off at the source—but it has to be done carefully.
Even then, once evidence is out, the public will find what they want to find—and that’s what makes this entire process so risky.
How I Manage These Situations
When a client is adamant about releasing evidence, I have to step away from the emotional urgency and take a hyper-pragmatic approach.
1. Step Back and Analyse Objectively
I don’t just assess what the evidence proves—I analyse how it could be twisted.
Would the public interpret this the way we do?
What damaging clip could be taken out of this?
Are we introducing a new problem by addressing the current one?
2. Anticipate the Viral Edit
I don’t just listen to the voice note as-is—I imagine how a TikTok or Twitter user might cut it.
What’s the pull quote that could go viral?
Could a line be clipped to imply something worse?
Does my client’s tone work against them, even if their words are fine?
3. Play Devil’s Advocate
I act as if I’m the opposing PR team looking to discredit my own client.
What counter-argument would I push?
Does the evidence actually help, or does it just invite more debate?
If this was about someone I didn’t support, would I be convinced?
The PR Lesson: Truth Alone is Never Enough
I’ve had clients who were 100% right—but we still couldn’t release the evidence. Why? Because truth alone doesn’t win battles. Perception does.
The public doesn’t consume scandals passively. They pick sides, look for patterns, and latch onto whatever supports their existing biases. If the evidence doesn’t overwhelmingly shift the narrative, it risks becoming just another piece of content in the ongoing drama.
As PR professionals, our job isn’t just to release the truth—it’s to control how it lands. And sometimes, that means telling a client no, even when they feel like they have no other choice.
Final Thought: The Power of Pragmatism
Leaking private evidence can feel like the only option in the heat of a crisis, but it’s never a decision to take lightly. Once it’s out, it’s out forever.
Our role as PR professionals isn’t just about responding to crises—it’s about thinking ahead, spotting risks before they happen, and ensuring that in the battle of public perception, our clients don’t just survive, but come out stronger.
And that means knowing when to speak—and when to let the silence do the work.