The Winner: Matthew Syed 

This week, BBC Newsnight hosted a discussion on the government’s new welfare policies, and while several guests made thoughtful contributions, one speaker stood out: journalist and broadcaster Matthew Syed. His appearance was a great example in how to communicate a difficult message with clarity, confidence, and sensitivity. 

Syed tackled a highly charged topic – the rise in mental health diagnoses and its impact on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) benefits – with a message that could easily have been misinterpreted as dismissive or harsh. But instead of diving straight into the argument, he started by finding common ground with the audience. Acknowledging that talking about mental health was once taboo, he framed the discussion as a natural progression rather than an attack on progress. This opening allowed viewers to listen with an open mind rather than immediately rejecting his perspective. 

Facts, tone and delivery 

One of Syed’s strengths is his ability to blend opinion with evidence. Rather than making sweeping statements, he supported his argument with research and statistics, reinforcing his credibility. This made it harder for critics to dismiss his viewpoint as just a personal take – it was rooted in data. 

A message can be right, but if it’s delivered in the wrong way, it won’t land. Syed spoke calmly and compassionately, avoiding an overly combative or emotional tone. This made it difficult for opponents to accuse him of being insensitive. His phrasing was deliberate, ensuring his argument was clear and balanced rather than inflammatory. 

Syed’s final statement, “Mental health is not just a medical issue, it’s an implicit and unspoken consensus between medics and wider society, and I think it’s gone way too far”, was the perfect closing line. Concise and thought-provoking, it ensured his key point stuck with viewers long after the debate ended. 

Syed’s appearance is a great example of how to communicate difficult messages effectively. He found common ground, used evidence to support his case, and delivered his points with care. For anyone facing a tough media interview, his approach offers valuable lessons in how to win people over – even when discussing controversial topics.  

The Loser: Disney’s Snow White 

Disney’s decision to cancel the UK premiere of its Snow White remake represents a significant failure in communication, reputation management, and PR strategy. What should have been a high-profile event promoting one of the company’s most exciting productions has instead become a case study in how not to handle a media firestorm. 

Reputation management failures 

The controversy surrounding Snow White has been growing for over a year, yet Disney’s response has been consistently reactive rather than strategic. Public concerns about the film’s direction – from story changes to casting decisions – have been met with defensiveness rather than a clear, cohesive messaging strategy. The decision to scale back media engagements, reportedly to limit questioning of lead actress Rachel Zegler, highlights Disney’s reluctance to manage difficult conversations head-on. Avoiding press scrutiny does not eliminate controversy: it amplifies the perception that the company has something to hide. 

Lack of narrative control 

A key component of effective PR is shaping public perception before controversy takes hold. Disney failed to do this. Zegler’s early criticisms of the original 1937 Snow White animation were left unchecked, allowing negative sentiment to snowball. Rather than reinforcing the film’s value to both new and legacy audiences, Disney allowed its own lead actress to undermine the brand. The company also failed to handle external criticism effectively, such as the backlash to its decision to replace actors with CGI-generated characters instead of traditional dwarves. These missteps created a fragmented and inconsistent media narrative. 

The culmination of these failures has been the cancellation of Snow White’s London premiere – a drastic move for a film with a reported $250 million budget. This decision signals a loss of confidence in the film’s reception and suggests that Disney hopes to minimise further reputational damage by limiting exposure. However, in crisis communications, retreat is rarely an effective strategy.  

By failing to address criticism proactively, control its messaging, or reassure key stakeholders, Disney has allowed controversy to define the narrative.