Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Part II: When you hold the key to your controversial story

It shouldn't be so, but sometimes unscrupulous or simply sloppy reporters adhere to this philosophy: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."
It shouldn't be so, but sometimes unscrupulous or simply sloppy reporters adhere to this philosophy: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."
Inside Edge PR

As explored in Part I: When you hold the key to your controversial story, most of the time speaking to a reporter is perfectly fine. It’s a win-win situation, with both parties deriving benefit from the interaction.

But it’s important to recognize those occasions when saying nothing may be your best course of action.

Here are some of a scenario’s characteristics that make it a prime candidate for shrugging off or even being so bold as to laugh off a media inquiry. (Laughing at a reporter might actually be your best tact, if done in a convincing, ‘I’ve-got-nothing to-hide and you’re barking-up-the-wrong-tree’ manner.)

*When you have strong reason to believe that there is a “hatchet job” in the works.

Your instincts, past history and common sense are telling you that the media gesture to offer you a voice in the story is simply a superficial checking-of-the-box to satisfy that most basic of journalistic tenets. Or, worse yet, that they will twist whatever you provide to serve their preconceived agenda.

In some cases, you may have received glimmers of what the outlet is reporting, and how it is waging its reporting. The outlet’s or reporter’s tone and tactics are giving you considerable pause.

“Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story,” sadly, is a philosophy that all too many reporters subscribe to, either intentionally or by neglecting fundamental principles of fairness and fact-checking.

*When there is little that you could say to counteract criticism or allegations.

You may be in the wrong, or at least far from being right. It is likely be best to limit any further damage by crafting a carefully worded statement that you first get reviewed by appropriate counselors, including legal counsel, if necessary.

Let each of your words count, and don’t roll the dice by hoping that the reporter will faithfully recount them in full or in context. One approach is to email (and confirm the reporter’s receipt of) a spoken response, via audio file, so that the statement is audibly “on the record.”

In any event, heed this principle, shared by the likes of Dan Yuen and Bob Kummer, longtime Amway Diamonds and leaders in World Wide DreamBuilders whose businesses flourish on the basis of building relationships that stand the test of time: it's better to refrain from speaking and retain the option to discuss a situation later, if necessary, than to speak in the heat of a moment and come to regret it.

*When you are blind-sided.

You get a call out of the blue and a reporter starts in on a flurry of questions that have you on your heels. This is an occasion that cries out, at minimum, for you to indicate that you are not in a position to talk in that very moment.

Find out if they have already established a deadline. Based on their response, indicate your intention to call back beforehand. In fairness, that deadline should be at least a few hours away, which would give you some time to carve out a plan.

Such a plan could consist of a request for the reporter to provide information that offers you more of the story’s context, a written statement, a decision not to participate in an interview, or some other course of action.

Whether you encounter any of these scenarios, or something else, remember that “need” is usually a two-way street. Even the most skillful and intimidating reporters know, but won’t offer to you, that you may well hold the key that keeps them from opening their story’s door.

Don’t surrender it without assessing the pros and cons.

Report this ad