A couple weeks ago, when the Eliot Spitzer story broke, friends and family began asking me what I would have done were I the former governor's public relations advisor. Most everyone I know is aware that I study PR, and they were curious to know how I would have handled the prostitution ring scandal and what I would have advised the former governor to do.

My parents and some other relatives were not only disgusted by the whole situation, but were totally turned off by Spitzer's two brief speeches (one that informed the public of his wrongdoings and of his apology, and one that announced his resignation). My family members thought the speeches were poorly done and that they made people even more angry with the former governor.

I, however, have a different opinion of the PR behind Spitzer's actions following the discovery of his link to the prostitution ring. In a reply to those who wanted to know what I would have done, I first informed them that years ago, I vowed never to do PR for politicians. In my few years on this earth, I have learned that politicians almost always have some steamy sex situation brewing, and that I don't ever want to be the individual who has to clean up that mess.

Also, though, I told friends and family that even if the best PR person in the world had been working for Spitzer, the final two speeches wouldn't have changed. When a politician gets embroiled in something of this magnitude, what else can a PR advisor do than to advise him/her to just tell the truth quickly and get out of office?

In much of the crisis communication research I have read, it has been found that the best thing to do to steady oneself after a crisis occurs is to be fast about telling the public exactly what happened. Speed and honesty are often crucial when trying to ease public anger or, in some cases, save the organization or individual involved in the crisis. Also, when a public feels cheated, it wants someone to blame and pay for the offense, and it wants an apology.

Whoever helped Spitzer come to the decision to say what he said and then leave office was giving the public just what it wanted: a target (Spitzer) for pointing the finger and a straightforward apology. The speedy admission of the truth and the fact that Spitzer paid for his crime (by leaving office) were actions that quite possibly helped prevent an even worse reaction from the public.

I'm not saying that the PR behind the speeches created a favorable impression of Spitzer, but it certainly did more for him than lying, blame-shifting or making excuses would have done. Think of the many politicians who have done something awful and then lied about it afterward. I'd be willing to bet that Spitzer will come out of this media storm better off than those politicians who didn't just come out with the truth immediately after they offended the public.

-Kelly