It seems that not a day goes by without universities and non-profits scrambling to explain something, often compelled to defend an action or inaction on a subject that has caused the public or elected officials’ outrage or angst.

For those who don’t have a crisis communications advisor on their team or available at an offsite firm, here’s a quick master class that landed in my e-mail yesterday. It comes from the CEO of The Atlantic concerning the Signal group chat. Note that this message is coming from Jeffrey Goldberg’s boss, not from Goldberg himself. I’ve added some thoughts below on why I think he nailed it.

An Invitation from the Atlantic’s CEO

One of the most sacred principles of The Atlantic, as laid out in its 1857 founding statement, is that the magazine deals with politics as they are. We will report the truth, no matter who is in power. The Atlantic, our founders wrote, “will deal frankly with persons and with parties, endeavoring always to keep in view that moral element which transcends all persons and parties, and which alone makes the basis of a true and lasting national prosperity.”

This principle of course came into play when our editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, realized that he had accidentally been included in the “Houthi PC small group” Signal chat about an imminent attack on Yemen. Goldberg at first worried that it was a hoax. When he realized it was real, he left the group, called the officials involved, and then published a story. After they falsely accused him, and The Atlantic, of having made things up, we published a second story with a direct transcript of the chat.

Some of the exchanges that occurred last week might have bewildered our magazine’s founders. I suspect that if you had texted Ralph Waldo Emerson

after a strike in Yemen, he might have tossed his phone into Walden Pond. But the general principle was one that everyone involved in The Atlantic for the past 168 years has understood: Our job is to report on the most important issues of the day—fairly, accurately, and patiently—no matter what anyone in power says.

We take these responsibilities, and our legacy, very seriously at The Atlantic, and we are very grateful for the support that you, our readers, have given us in the past week. In that spirit, I’d like to invite you to a subscriber-only conversation with Goldberg this Thursday, April 3. You can find more details on the virtual event below. I hope you’ll join us.

My Take on Why This is Pitch Perfect:

Positive Opening — An invitation, not an explanation or an apology.

He refers to the publication’s mission and values as sacred principles. Sacred is a great word, which means non-negotiable in this context but sounds nicer and not defensive.

The message moves quickly to what happened and acknowledges there are conflicting versions but points no fingers and names no names. It does not regurgitate every detail of the situation. It assumes the reader has a brain and knows what you are talking about or has access to the internet.

It grabs the biggest bull by the horns by reminding stakeholders that a decision to share the actual text was the only choice once the other side sent the angry bull into the ring.

It dials it down with an esoteric ‘what if’ — what might Ralph Waldo Emerson do?

It ends with a recommitment to core beliefs and gratitude.

It leverages the moment, discomfort and all, by creating an opportunity for stakeholders to spend more time with the editor, the guy who is still in the ring with the bull, Jeffrey Goldberg.

A Messaging Moment: Can You Grab a Bull by the Horns?