Strategic Silence and the Chris Brown/Rihanna fiasco

Well, the blogosphere is all abuzz about the Chris Brown and Rihanna debacle, so I guess I have no choice but to put my two cents in on the issue :)
Celebrity publicists have interesting jobs (no duh)...but seriously, they tend to have a little more freedom than do PR folk who represent companies. Where lying and covering up is dangerous for the PR agency, publicists can generally utilize under the belt techniques when protecting their clients. So it's interesting that when news first broke about Chris Brown and Rihanna not performing at the Grammy's, the story being told was that they had been involved in an 'accident'. Of course, keeping things hidden in celebrityland is almost near impossible when the paparazzi is involved and with stars as big as Rihanna and Chris Brown, the story was bound to get out eventually. And so we know what we know now: apparently an argument turned physical which led to a police report, which led to Chris Brown turning himself into the authorities on charges of allegedly roughing up the Bajan singer.

A story appearing on E! news yesterday before the real story broke had Rihanna's publicist Amanda Silverman saying very succintly that the singer 'is well. Thank you for your concern and support'. But today, with the story all over the airwaves, Rihanna's rep. had no comment. And neither did Brown's rep. This tactic of not saying anything is referred to as 'strategic silence' and Silverman's initial quote would probably fall under the umbrella of 'strategic ambiguity'. Strategic ambiguity, so labeled by Eisenberg (1984) I believe, is undeniably a very useful tactic for both organizations, celebrities and politicians, as it allows for multiple interpretations and preserves future options. Don't you love it, they aren't lying..but they aren't necessarily telling the truth. Quite a few studies have looked at the ethics of this practice with regard to organizations but I think it would be fasincating to look at how the public perceives this practice with regard to celebrities and their credibility. Does employing this maneuver affect how the public views these stars? In a case like the Chris Brown/Rihanna story, does Brown's silence help or hurt his image? The chewing gum manufacturer Wrigley, for whom Brown was a pitchman, has suspended all marketing campaigns tied to the singer while they wait to see the outcome of these 'domestic abuse' allegations. A smart move I think. But would Chris have fared better had his publicist issued a statement as soon as the news broke? Did the legal ramifications of making a statement during an ongoing investigation influence this decision?

Admittedly, Chris Brown being violent with a female isn't the same as Michael Phelps smoking marijuana but Phelps' sponsors have more or less stood by him, was his quick response/apology to the photo helpful in keeping his endorsers' backing? Yeah I know my parallel is a bit off, but I believe it does merit some thought. What is the benefit of strategic silence in this instance (Chris Brown)? How does it affect his credibility? The public seems to have already passed its judgement on Brown if the blogs and comments are anything to go by. As the story develops, we'll see how and when Chris Brown's publicists will address the issue...but I think it's safe to say that as more time passes without a statement from his camp, the image repair will undoubtedly become more difficult. Think Rod Blagojevich.