Reading time: 5 minutes
When public figures face a crisis, how they communicate (or choose not to) can shape their reputation for years. Is staying silent a good or bad strategy in a crisis?
Welcome to the Reputation Spellbook, where we dive into the art of PR from every angle and offer insights to elevate your reputation.
In today’s world, where public opinion can shift instantly, we've witnessed how quickly a crisis can ruin a public figure’s reputation. Warren Buffett once said, “It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.” This rings true for Flemish TV presenter Tom Waes and former European Commissioner Didier Reynders, who both fell victim to the public’s eyes.
CASE 1: Tom Waes - Public apology and the road to redemption
Last week, Flemish television presenter Tom Waes appeared in court to answer charges including drunk driving and involuntary injury. The hearing stems from a serious road accident late last year, in which Waes, later found to have a blood alcohol level five times over the legal limit, crashed his vehicle. The presenter sustained serious injuries and also injured a road maintenance worker.
Beyond the physical consequences, he faced intense public backlash, shame and disappointment expressed by fans and the broader public. Shortly after the accident, Waes shared an emotional message on social media expressing deep regret, then stepped away from the public eye.
At the beginning of April, he made his public reappearance on the TV show Vive le Vélo, where he could speak honestly about the incident and apologise publicly.
CASE 2: Didier Reynders - When silence backfires
Former European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders came under scrutiny after authorities suspected him of manipulating the national lottery system for potential money laundering. Although his actions complied with official regulations (deposit limits and the use of e-tickets), the repeated combination of these actions over a long period raised suspicions.
The investigation had been ongoing, but only became public after his mandate ended late last year. Police raided multiple properties, including his residences, and Reynders has reportedly been questioned.
Since the lottery case became public, Reynders has remained completely silent. He has issued no statements, suspended all public appearances, and ceased all social media activity.
A crisis typically unfolds in several news cycles: the initial breaking news, the response, and the aftermath.
In the case of Didier Reynders, the silence and lack of new information in a crucial time frame left journalists with little to work with. As a result, the media storm quickly lost momentum, and the crisis began to fade. But don’t be fooled: The media and the public never forget, and trust doesn’t rebuild itself automatically.
As journalist Béatrice Delvaux, chief editorial writer at Le Soir noted: “Although Didier Reynders' silence is legally justified, it becomes untenable in light of the seriousness of the new revelations and the moral responsibility associated with his past positions.”
Given his long political career, Reynders is now widely perceived as dishonest and disappointing, a sentiment echoed across social media platforms and Belgian media outlets. His approach has significant downsides. Without a response, only one version of the story was told, one that left many assuming the worst. Silence can affirm that narrative and let rumours spiral.
Tom Waes, on the other hand, publicly took responsibility and then stepped back.
Even while off-screen, he remained actively engaged: attending conferences on alcohol and road safety, meeting victims’ families, and showing a genuine effort to understand the consequences of his actions (HLN).
Choosing a light-hearted programme for his comeback was a smart move. Instead of a critical talk show or news programme, Waes returned in a warm, light-hearted environment in which he could speak sincerely. In return, his move seems to have earned media forgiveness:
“He has always been completely honest.“– Vincent Leus, founder of the association Emilie Leus
“It made him fragile and human” - HLN
In crisis communication, silence is rarely neutral and often ominous. It may be useful briefly, just like in Tom Waes's case, but it’s not a strategy on its own. When you face a crisis, remember these golden rules by Oliver Aust:
DO: AAA
- Acknowledge
- Apologise
- Act
DON’T: DDD
- Deny
- Diminish
- Deflect
Lead the narrative. Speak with honesty. Show vulnerability. That’s how you protect and rebuild the public’s trust.
What if you took advantage of the crisis…to come back stronger?
Tom Waes is on a promising path to rebuild his reputation. He demonstrates accountability and humanity by admitting his mistakes and showing a sincere desire to understand their impact. As a result, the media companies he has worked with have maintained their trust in him, and public opinion seems to have softened.
As his career gradually returns to normal, Tom Waes now carries something more: a sense of mission. With his celebrity, he can shift mentalities and spark meaningful change.
“If I had a public relations agency tasked with rehabilitating Tom Waes, I would have been very satisfied with his reappearance on Vive le Vélo. His confession seemed sincere, thanks to the church-like acoustics of the Poperinge hall. We Flemish remain Catholic to the core. As soon as someone shows remorse and shame, we are satisfied.”
– Tex Van Berlaer, Knack
This trajectory sharply contrasts with that of Didier Reynders, whose silence may have allowed the media storm to settle, but at the cost of lingering suspicion and a damaged public image.
Effective crisis communication relies on a carefully crafted strategy. When leaders take control of their public presence with authenticity and intention, they can rebuild trust and emerge as resilient, visionary figures ready to lead the way forward.
But this will be the topic of another spell…
