3 ms·

Thanks for the details - given that, they could have written a real response to the allegations rather than this blog post they posted and it would have come ac

Thanks for the details - given that, they could have written a real response to the allegations rather than this blog post they posted and it would have come across better. This blog post comes across very defensive somewhat clueless, doesn't inspire confidence. I get why they'd not want to engage with the media (media writers are often useless at best, if not actively/intentionally harmful with regard to this kind of technical nuance), but that's no excuse for the response they have here. If they were going to go direct they should have done it right. For the curious, their report: https://www.nsogroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ReportBooklet.pdf https://www.nsogroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ReportBo...

cbsmith 5y ago
The tough thing about being attacked in the press with misinformation is it is very difficult to respond in a way that comes across well. As you can see from the Post's publication of the correspondence from NSO (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/07/18/nso-group-response-pegasus-project/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/07/18/nso...), they did try to inform the media about the technical nuance, but it's hard to get between a journalist and what looks like a great story. I think a skilled and experienced PR professional could have maybe navigated this successfully, but I've seen plenty of them fail in less difficult contexts than this.
- JohnFen 5y ago
  It's also tougher when you're an organization that blew its credibility before this latest thing even happened.