A mass tort's public communications and its claimant intake are not the same function, and treating them as one is where this work goes wrong. The story exists to inform the public record. Finding people who may have a claim is a separate, more careful process.
Digital media can reach people affected by a defect or exposure who'd never have found a lawyer otherwise — that's a real public service when done right. Done wrong, it looks like solicitation dressed up as journalism, and it invites exactly the scrutiny that undermines a case's credibility with the very reporters and jurors you need to trust it.
Accurate, unexaggerated public information about the litigation and who it may affect — not urgency language, not manufactured deadlines. Any potential claimant reaching out gets routed to counsel for verification and intake; I don't screen or qualify claimants, and I don't write copy designed to generate calls rather than inform. The story has to be true whether or not anyone ever calls because of it.