She should have asked more questions about how the reporter was considering framing the piece, and what angles he might take.

Second, if the journalist interviewed her for a female CEO’s piece and ended up with a “Manners” piece, I think that person is probably not the best journalist. I understand sometimes you are assigned a story (such as why people are waiting until the last minute to buy Christmas trees) that has an untrue premise developed by your editor who believes it is true. You interview people and find out it is not true, and need a new angle.

I think this piece, however, vastly misconstrues what the woman thought she was being interviewed about.

As far as crisis control afterwards, I would take the angle that for all this woman’s faults, she is not a bad person. She works hard, built her own company from the ground up, et al. Take this as an opportunity to tell the story the way she wanted it told. After all, it is often the answer that matters more, not the question that spawned it.

I would suggest she make an appearance on another show on the same network, or possibly appear on 20/20 again to correct the record. Develop a messaging strategy that states that 1) this woman’s information was misconstrued, and that 2) she is a hard working, good person. (If not on the same show, possibly on a competing network’s show?)

One could also possibly argue that she has good chance of a defamation suit. There is gross negligence with the information, and financial damages. They made her out to be a bad person when she’s probably not.

I’m not sure, from the PR angle, if I would suggest she pursue the charges. If they give her any guff, she might bring up to them that she’s aware she has the option of claiming defamation, but wants to avoid courts and legal troubles if she can simply correct the record herself.