PREP 12- "Remotely piloted vehicles"

The Public Affairs professional(s) in charge of this incident were right to take an aggressive approach to inform the public of the positives of the use of drones. First step, changing the term used. Toscano acknowledged the negative context with the word 'drone' and how other terms like 'remotely piloted vehicles' were more accurate. However, while his campaign was rightful to be aggressive in intensity, it lacked an emotional appeal and sympathy. He was toughly candid and did not do anything to diminish the deaths of the civilians and families affected. He kind of made it sound like deaths were unavoidable and unfortunate, like too bad, so sad. This is not good relations with the public. He should have expressed the regret for the people affected and then moved into his intense movement to contradict the bad press. Pros of these vehicles: technological advancements, safety and backup to military men and women, humanitarian potential, etc. Accidents do happen and while Toscano used the car crashes example (car crashes kill 35,000 people a year) to show the bigger harms out there, he may cause people to be defensive. I feel like emotional tiptoeing is a necessity.

On a more present news story, drones are becoming a huge potential part of our future. Amazon is wanting to use them to deliver packages immediately. Obviously, companies are not afraid to take on this technological advance despite its negative past.