Purpose – The aim of this paper is to examine how crises can be triggered online, how different social media tools escalate crises, and how issues gain credibility when they transit to mainstream media. Design/methodology/approach – This exploratory study uses the multiple case study method to analyze five crises, generated online, throughout their life-cycles, in order to build analytic generalizations (Yin). Findings – Crises are often triggered online when stakeholders are empowered by social media platforms to air their grievances. YouTube and Twitter have been used to raise issues through its large user base and the lack of gatekeeping. Facebook and blogs escalate crises beyond the immediate stakeholder groups. These crises are covered by mainstream media because of their newsworthiness. As a result, the crises gain credibility offline. Mainstream media coverage ceases when traditional news elements are no longer present. Research limitations/implications – If crises are increasingly generated online, this study aims to apply a framework to manage the impact on organizations. Practical implications – How practitioners can use different new media tools to counter crises online and manage the transition of crises to mainstream media. Originality/value – This is one of the first few studies that analyses how organizational crises originate online, gain traction and get escalated onto mainstream media. Understanding what causes crises to trigger online and gain legitimacy offline will enable practitioners to engage in effective crisis management strategies.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the viability of the media relations framework, Mediating the Media model (Pang, 2010), and ascertains its relevance to practitioners in a changing media landscape in Singapore where social media is emerging as an alternative source of information tool. Design/methodology/approach – In-depth interviews with 20 media relations practitioners who were former journalists. Practitioners with journalism experience were chosen as they perform better at media relations (Sallot and Johnson, 2006a; Sinaga and Callison, 2008). Findings – The model posits two sets of influences, i.e. internal (journalist mindset, journalist routines and newsroom routines) and external (extra-media forces and media ideology) in media relations. Internal influences were found to be more prevalent than external influences and journalist mindset was the most pervasive factor influencing media relations. Research limitations/implications – Findings are based solely on interviews and some claims cannot be corroborated. As this is a qualitative study situated in one country, it is also not generalizable. Practical implications – This study will serve useful insights for new practitioners to approach media relations in a holistic and systematic manner and for seasoned practitioners to re-evaluate their current media strategies. Originality/value – This inaugural test found rigor in the model, and affords an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of journalist-practitioner relationships in a changing media landscape. It also presents an intriguing opportunity for the model to be applied to countries where the media industry operates under vastly different environments so as to ensure that the model stands up to scrutiny as it seeks to be positioned as a viable model for media relations.