Aggressive crisis PR works when a statement is specific, factual and legally defensible. In April 2012, Current TV answered Keith Olbermann's lawsuit by accusing him of "serial, material breaches of his contract," and at least six outlets repeated its lines. Olbermann had signed a five-year, $50 million contract about a year earlier, per Raw Story. A hard response without specifics reads as defensive and invites a second crisis.
Originally published April 6, 2012. Updated October 2026.
What happened between Current TV and Keith Olbermann?
Current TV fired Keith Olbermann in late March 2012, and he sued the network within a week. Current, the network co-founded by former Vice President Al Gore and businessman Joel Hyatt, announced the firing on a Friday. Olbermann filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Thursday, April 5, 2012, claiming wrongful termination and saying Current owed him between $50 million and $70 million, according to Raw Story.
Current's first statement, on the firing, said the network was founded on "respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty to our viewers", and that those values no longer described its relationship with Olbermann. That statement was polite and general. The lawsuit changed the situation, because Olbermann's filing put his version of events in front of reporters, and Current had to answer in public the same day.
LAist reported that Current responded to the suit and filed a cross-complaint. This page covers the communications choices, not the legal merits. The outcome of the litigation depends on the court record, and nothing here is a view on who was right.
What did the Current TV statement say?
The Current TV statement did four things in one short paragraph: it named specific conduct, quoted a familiar saying, turned the lawsuit into the reason for the response, and ended on a memorable line. A spokesperson for the network issued it on the day the suit was filed, and Talking Points Memo published the full text.
| Move | What the statement did | Why a reporter could use it |
|---|---|---|
| Specific conduct | Listed failure to show up, sabotaging the network and attacking executives | Three concrete charges fit in one sentence |
| Familiar saying | Cited the old adage about arguing the law, the facts or the table | A quotable frame the audience already knows |
| Turn of the argument | Said the lawsuit moved the dispute into a process with objective review | Presented the response as a reaction, not an attack |
| Closing line | Noted that in the legal process, Olbermann was "actually required to show up" | A short line that works as a headline |
The adage said that when the law is on your side you argue the law, when the facts are on your side you argue the facts, and when neither is, you pound the table. Current applied it to Olbermann, saying his career had specialized in pounding the table. The closing line came from the same statement and tied the two ideas together: Olbermann had missed work, and now the legal process would require him to attend.
Why did the statement travel so far?
The statement travelled because every part of it could be quoted on its own. TMZ, Complex, Raw Story, Fox News, Talking Points Memo and LAist all published the adage or the closing line. Each outlet chose a different piece, and each piece still made sense without the rest.
Why it works: reporters under deadline lift sentences that stand alone and carry a clear point. The named charges gave them facts to repeat, and the adage gave them a headline. The statement also reached outlets with different audiences, from legal reporting to entertainment sites, so the same company message appeared in several settings within a day.
The lesson applies to any statement. Write at least one sentence that a reporter could paste into a story with no setup, and make sure it contains a fact, not only an attitude.
What did Olbermann allege, and why does the other side's case matter?
Olbermann alleged breach of contract, sabotage and disparagement, and his side of the story was as public as Current's. AceShowbiz reported that his lawsuit described a workplace where "dysfunction permeated all levels of the organization." He also claimed he was owed between $50 million and $70 million.
That counter-narrative shaped Current's choices. A company responding to a public figure is not writing on a blank page. Reporters have the other side's filing open next to the company's statement, so each claim in the response has to hold up against specific allegations. Current's statement answered with conduct charges because the lawsuit had already framed the dispute as a question of who breached the contract.
What would a measured version have looked like?
A measured version would keep the facts and drop the adage. Illustrative scenario: a network issues a two-sentence response that lists the same three conduct points, says it will answer the claims in court, and stops. The result is safer legally and less likely to be quoted. The trade-off is the whole point of this case: Current accepted more risk in exchange for a statement that reporters could not ignore.
Choose the measured version when the company's facts are thin, when customers and not courts are the main audience, or when a settlement is the likely end. Choose the hard-hitting version only after counsel agrees that each charge can be supported.
What should a company do in the first 24 hours after a public figure sues it?
A company should secure its documents, brief its leadership and agree on one spokesperson within the first 24 hours. The legal team confirms what can be said without harming the case. The communications team drafts the holding line, the fact sheet and the likely questions. Executives then decide whether the company will fight in public or stay narrow, and employees get a short note so they hear it from the company first. Everything else, including social posts, waits for that decision. Write the decision down with a date and a name, so the team can see later why it chose that tone and who approved it.
When is aggressive crisis PR the right move?
Aggressive crisis PR is the right move when the facts support it, a court or regulator will review the claims, and the company can accept a public fight. Current had a contract dispute with documented terms, a lawsuit that guaranteed an objective review, and a statement that named conduct instead of motives. Those conditions are uncommon, and most crises lack them.
| Condition | Hard-hitting works when | Hard-hitting fails when |
|---|---|---|
| Facts | The company can document each charge | Claims rest on opinion or rumor |
| Forum | A court or regulator will review the dispute | The audience is the public alone |
| Opponent | The other party initiated the legal action | The company started the conflict |
| Tone | The statement names conduct and stays factual | The statement attacks character |
| Review | Lawyers and senior communicators approved the text | A junior team drafted it under pressure |
A measured response is often the better choice. The post on Publix's 2018 political-donation backlash shows a company using a regretful, collective statement to calm a story that was driven by customers. The Cathay Pacific case study covers measured accountability after a different kind of crisis. Choose the tone that fits the audience, because a hard statement aimed at customers can turn a dispute into a boycott.
What are the risks of a hard-hitting statement?
The main risks are legal exposure, escalation and damage to the company's own image. A statement that calls a lawsuit false and malicious invites a response, and a company that cannot prove each charge may face claims of its own. Anything published in a statement can be read back in court.
Escalation is the second risk. Current's statement coincided with a cross-complaint, which showed the network was prepared to fight in the courtroom as well as in the press. A company that sounds combative while hoping to settle privately sends mixed signals. Decide the legal strategy first, and write the communications to match it.
The third risk is the opponent's audience. A public figure with a following can answer in minutes, and the exchange can turn into a contest of insults. Plan the second statement before the first goes out, and agree who will speak if the other side replies. Keep the follow-up shorter than the original.
How can a communications team write a hard-hitting statement responsibly?
A communications team writes a hard-hitting statement responsibly by separating facts from attitude, checking each fact against a document, and sending the draft through legal review. The steps below follow that order.
| Step | Action | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. List the facts | Write each charge as a plain sentence with a date and a source document | A fact sheet with no adjectives |
| 2. Cut the motives | Remove guesses about what the other side wants or feels | A draft limited to conduct |
| 3. Pick one quotable line | Write a single sentence a reporter could use as a headline | One line tested without surrounding context |
| 4. Review with counsel | Have a lawyer check each claim for risk | An approved text and a list of removed phrases |
| 5. Plan the reply | Prepare a short answer to the most likely response | A second statement ready to send |
The Current statement passes step three well. Its closing line is short, factual in its reference to attendance, and sharp in tone. Apply the same test to your own text: read the line aloud, remove everything around it, and ask whether it still means one clear thing.
Where does this case sit in the crisis library?
This case is one of the named examples in the crisis communications case study library, and it sits under the crisis communications foundation page. Teams building a response plan can pair it with the crisis communication plan, and teams working across borders can read the page on international crisis public relations.
Two other pages in the archive add context. The 2011 UBS crisis post looks at a financial firm's crisis a year before this one, and the crisis communications research summary collects the data behind this work.
Conclusion: Use the hard line only when the facts back it
Current TV's statement shows that a combative response can work when it is specific, quotable and tied to a legal process. Before you write your own, list the facts that can be documented, cut every motive, and write one sentence a reporter could use alone. Then have counsel review each claim, and plan the second statement before the first goes out. If the facts are thin, choose the measured tone instead.
Last updated: October 2026.