This week's roundup covers what Cornell University's response to a sexual assault lawsuit reveals about the limits of reactive communications, new Edelman-Yale research showing that facts alone won't earn trust in a fragmented health information landscape and how Boston Logan Airport turned an overhead announcement into one of the more creative— and contagious—PR campaigns of the fall.
Cornell University’s Response to Sexual Assault Lawsuit Shows the Limits of Reactive Communications
What happened: A 101-page civil lawsuit filed Sept. 16 by a former Cornell University student identified as Jane Doe alleges seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity drugged and gang raped her at the on-campus fraternity house in October 2024. The lawsuit names Cornell, the fraternity, the seven current and former students and several other defendants.
The filing reignited national attention after the finding that the Tompkins County District Attorney's office had declined to file criminal charges in 2024. The DA reopened the investigation, and the New York Attorney General's office has announced it is reviewing Cornell's handling of the case.
The communications picture is complicated. The Cornell Daily Sun's recent reporting—which cited claims that accused students received a punishment of writing an essay—fueled widespread backlash among current students, alumni and the general public and helped spark a media frenzy that preceded the DA's decision to reopen.
Cornell sharply disputed the essay accusation in its Sept. 28 statement, saying sanctions included expulsions and suspensions and that "a continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case is irresponsible, will make survivors feel less safe and supported, and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault."
Another statement quickly followed: a Sept. 29 letter signed by the Board Chair, President and Provost offering resources, an FAQ about the allegations and a commitment to transparency "within the bounds of federal law." Cornell also agreed to an independent review of its handling of the case.
Communication takeaways: The gap between what Cornell says it did and what students and alumni believe happened has become the story—and reactive statements alone don't close it. The university's federal privacy constraints are real, but they also mean Cornell cannot fully defend itself in public, creating a credibility vacuum others may fill. Institutional communications battles are often lost not at the moment of response, but in the years of silence that preceded it.
Anne Marie Squeo, CEO and Founder at Proof Point Communications and a veteran communications executive, says Cornell leadership broke foundational trust with Jane Doe's case—and statements alone will not help re-instill that trust.
"This isn't a situation they can over-communicate their way out of," Squeo says. "It requires real and substantive action and accountability consistently over time."
She outlined three actions the university should take immediately.
First, accountability—not just for this case, but for a broader problem Cornell already knows exists. Squeo notes that Cornell's own Presidential Task Force on Campus Sexual Assault found non-consensual sexual contact is up more than 50% at the university since 2015.
"The board of trustees should fire the university president as well as the head of campus security," she says. "And they should announce a zero-tolerance policy for any type of unwanted sexual contact. You do it, we find the allegation true, you're gone. Period."
Second, Squeo says Cornell needs to create an independent, experienced team to investigate crimes of a sexual nature—with emphasis on independence, meaning they cannot report to university leadership.
"Research shows those who commit sexual violence are motivated differently than those who commit other crimes," she says. "Victims, especially young women in college, also need to be handled differently given the trauma and societal pressures. The findings of these investigations should go directly to the local prosecutor and police, not university leadership."
Third—and perhaps most urgently—Squeo says this is not the moment for official statements and resource reminders.
"It's time to clear the air," she says. "Own the mistakes that have been made. Let parents and students express what they're feeling and what they've experienced. They can't run from this situation—it's all over the news globally."
Squeo recommends public and private listening sessions, with findings used to inform consistently enforced detailed rules and regulations. Annual reports, she adds, should be issued to measure progress against defined goals.
New Edelman and Yale Data: What Health Trust Means for Brands in the AI Era
What happened: Are doctors less trusted than TikTok? A new analysis from Edelman and the Yale School of Public Health finds that healthcare professionals still have significant influence over medical decisions—but they no longer have a monopoly on health authority. The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Analysis: Health Decisions in the Age of Information Overload examines how people navigate competing advice from doctors, friends, creators, AI and other sources.
Key findings:
- Nearly half surveyed believe someone without medical training who is fluent with AI can perform at least one health-related task as well as or better than a doctor, rising to 59% among 18–34-year-olds.
- A third say people without formal health credentials significantly influence their health decisions—primarily because those sources offer empathy, personal experience, understandable language and easy access that credentialed experts often don't provide.
- 70% of people worldwide believe at least one of six tested "divisive" health claims— including that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized, that childhood vaccine risks outweigh benefits, and that vaccines are used for population control—cutting across age, political affiliation and education level
- Among people holding three or more divisive beliefs, AI influence rises from 13% to 46% and creator influence from 9% to 45%—while doctor influence holds steady at 80%, suggesting more sources don't replace doctors but significantly distract from their authority
- When faced with conflicting advice from a doctor and another trusted source, only 51% always follow their doctor's recommendation
- Healthcare providers hold the strongest advantage on diagnosis (+27 points over uncredentialed sources) and long-term treatment—but uncredentialed sources actually lead on diet, nutrition and wellness
The report also identifies what would make credentialed experts more persuasive to skeptical patients: listening first before explaining, welcoming doubts without judgment, acknowledging they may not have all the answers, respecting patients' values rather than trying to change them and building a presence in the community. None of those are about having better facts.
Communications takeaways: For communicators—particularly in health, pharma or any wellness-adjacent brand— the data is a reality check. Giving people better facts from credible experts is not enough if those experts feel distant, clinical or hard to reach. What uncredentialed sources are winning on isn't accuracy—it's empathy, accessibility and relevance. The lesson isn't to abandon scientific credibility. It's that credibility alone won't move people who don't feel heard.
Jen Hauser, Global Health Chair at Edelman, says that the research tells communicators that facts are essential, but that facts alone don’t earn influence.
“People are making health decisions in an increasingly crowded information environment, shaped by medical experts, but also by family, peers, creators, AI and their own research,” Hauser says.
She notes that for health communicators, their role is increasingly to help the public navigate this complexity, not just add more information to it.
“That means listening before we inform, making complex information understandable, creating space for questions without judgment, and working through the people and places where trust already exists,” she says.
Hauser says that trust isn’t built through authority alone.
“It’s earned by helping people make sense of complexity and giving them the confidence to make informed decisions about their health.”
Wicked Good PR: How an Airport Announcement Became Boston's Hottest Audition
What happened: Ever wanted to be famous, yet incognito? Boston Logan International Airport and its agency partner Allen & Gerritsen had a simple but clever realization: the overhead announcement voice is one of the most recognized—and most overlooked—touchpoints in the airport experience. So Massport turned it into a contest.
The “Voice of Logan” campaign, launched Sept. 14, invites Massachusetts residents to audition for the chance to become the official voice greeting 43 million annual travelers. Submissions close Oct. 4, with public voting set for late October and the winner announcement to come Nov. 5.
What's made the campaign worth watching is the virality. It started with paid influencers and local radio and broadcast media, a live audition event at the airport complete with a custom-built recording booth and a push on paid social. From there, organic content took over—Boston Bruins players posted auditions, local politicians threw their hats in, Boston-area creators put their own spin on the format and everyday residents flooded social with submissions. Jimmy Fallon mentioned it in his opening monologue. Hometown hero Ben Affleck—earned, not paid— even auditioned on Jimmy Kimmel.
The campaign has generated more than 7 million impressions across nearly 300 media outlets including “Today” and NPR, roughly a week in.
Communication takeaways: The Voice of Logan story is a useful case study in building participation from the ground up. The campaign didn't go viral because of a big media buy—it spread because the idea itself invited people in. Boston's famously fierce regional identity did the rest. When a campaign is built around something people genuinely want to claim ownership of, the audience becomes the distribution channel.
Eva Wasko, SVP, Public Relations at Allen & Gerritsen (A&G), says this campaign is one of the team’s favorite examples of the power of integration.
"Strategy, creative, PR, social media, creator relations, business leadership, program management, experiential and production teams all working together to create a 360 experience that came to life across earned, paid, shared and owned channels."
Wasko provided some key takeaways for PR teams looking to replicate this type of viral campaign success:
- Obsess over your audience. From an in-person launch event to social conversation, community is the heart of this campaign. In person, contestants loved having the opportunity to meet and swap stories about why they're auditioning, and online, the campaign blew up with shared auditions—people tagging friends and family members. This campaign is not only bringing Massport's target audiences together—it's actually putting them at the center of it.
- Lean into local pride. The deep sense of local pride across Boston and Massachusetts has driven this conversation. Similar to sports fandom, it's refreshing to have one unifying topic to rally around.
- Earn attention, don't just buy it. PR was built into the DNA of this campaign from the beginning, ensuring the team was building a program that's inherently newsworthy and prime for social sharing. While paid media successfully set up the campaign to generate reach from the onset, an earned-first mindset dictated the course of the work. Proactive outreach to media and celebrities like Fallon, combined with organic buzz, allowed the campaign to pick up steam naturally and become a truly viral cultural conversation.
- Stay authentic to the brand. Not every airport or every brand could launch this campaign. Everything from the design of the audition booth to the script feels connected to the Boston Logan brand, Massport's mission to go above and beyond and the personality of the airport and its travelers.
Nicole Schuman is Managing Editor at PRNEWS.