Ronn Torossian, CEO, 5WPR

When you’re in a highly emotional state, it’s best to put your phone down. Don’t call, and don’t post on social media, no matter how badly you want to “stick it." to someone or how upset you are about a perceived situation. Because, if you don’t do your research first, it will come back to bite you. Just ask The New Yorker’s Talia Lavin. 

Last week both Lavin and the magazine were called on to apologize because, in a tweet, Lavin erroneously implied that an combat-wounded United States veteran and ICE forensics analyst was a Nazi. The image and the tweet were quickly shared, going viral. Many were slamming both ICE and the veteran, Justin Gaertner, a Marine who lost both his legs in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. 

For a short time, in the middle of one of the most contentious political topics of the year so far — the debate about family separation at the border — it appeared Levin and The New Yorker had a coup: ICE was using an apparent racist as a promotional image. But, just as quickly as Levin was propped up by the praise, it all came crashing down… hard. 

Turns out, the “cross." on Gaertner’s elbow was actually meant to represent his unit, and it was closer to the Maltese Cross than the Iron Cross. This fact became abundantly clear to Levin after U.S. veterans caught wind of the “controversy.." They flooded Twitter with both explanations and mockery of Levin’s mistake. Some of the commentary was corrective. Some of it was brutal. 

Countless people excoriated both Levin and The New Yorker for being so eager to denounce ICE that they just “assumed." their “poster boy." was racist. 

Then ICE got involved. The immigration enforcement agency was quick to defend Gaertner, saying The New Yorker was “needlessly slandering." a Marine veteran and American hero. ICE quickly released a statement that “Lavin deleted her post after military veterans responded that the tattoo looked more like a Maltese Cross…." 

Levin deleted her tweet, but — and stop me if you’ve heard this one before — someone had already screen-capped the tweet and kept it for reference. 

Gaertner, when someone finally asked him, said the cross is actually meant to represent Titan 2, his Marine unit. Further, he explained, the writing on his arm is the Spartan Creed, which talks about protecting families and children. This issue could have been solved by simply fact-checking the cross design or, even better, contacting Gaertner and asking what the cross actually meant. But, because Lavin jumped the gun, she soon found herself in the crosshairs of very angry veterans. 

And it gets worse… It’s really hard to think how Lavin could have chosen a more inappropriate target. Gaertner, in addition to being a wounded combat veteran, is a paralympic athlete who, according to ICE, “volunteers his time to motivate other wounded warriors and Boston bombing victims…." 

The more Twitter learned about this guy, the more vitriol flooded Lavin. Then, in their apology, The New Yorker did the smart thing by making sure to put some distance between the publication and its employee: 

“The New Yorker has just learned that a staff member erroneously made a derogatory assumption about ICE agent Justin Gaertner’s tattoo. The personal social-media accounts of staff members do not represent the magazine, and we in no way share the viewpoint expressed in this tweet… The tweet has been deleted, and we deeply regret any harm that this may have caused Mr. Gaertner.." 

In a single statement, The New Yorker absolved itself while putting the onus clearly on Lavin to respond. She locked her Twitter account. Actor Ron Perlman, who says he “got caught up." in the exchange and made similar incorrect assumptions, did apologize: “My apologies! I mistook the symbol on this man’s arm before I actually knew the facts.." 

And there, Mr. Perlman deftly puts a bow on the lesson.

About the Author: Ronn Torossian is CEO of 5WPR, a leading PR firm.