You could plead your case  by insisting that the Central Bank is being high -handed and  not acting in the spirit of collaboration thereby causing an undue public panic. You could criticise the media by suggesting  that they have been distorting your messages and then turn around and utiliise the same medium to write an unsigned letter that accuses the opposing side of adopting an“ “unusually harsh stance". You could even forget to hold direct court with your  distressed clients as they read headlines that fuel  their panic in the same way as a match to a gas line. And, while you’re at it, challenge the fairness of the  above named bank, and explain how a more fair and consensus based  process would have educated the public, the very group who feel ignored.

 Or 

As the man who many still respect you could sit down and get personal. You could forget the unsigned media letters  and start  to blog. You could use the web based  platform to define your messages and state your case. You could write specific messages for your clients outlining the  step-by-step reasons why their panic could create the very bomb they’re afraid of igniting. You could educate and inform  and in so doing outline what you learned from the process and what you'll be changing in the future. And you can approach the media frenzy with your own  communications channel and begin writing  with candour, urgency, timeliness, humility and yes, sometimes even, controversy.

 Couple questions:

1. Which tactic will generate more excitement, more buzz and be perceived as adding a valued voice to the messages already out there?  

2. Which one will increase  word-of-mouth while at the same time  improve the morale of  the people who still have to turn up for work day in and day  out. 

It’s real simple, I think. The tough part is wondering why the first has become so common.