Along with the growth of the internet as a primary channel for news delivery has come an increase in the practice of refusing to comment or cooperate with the news media as a public relations strategy.
This strategy manifests itself in news stories in the shape of how writers decide to contend with the results.
Most often you will see it handled this way:
“We reached out to ____ and they did not respond.”
“Messages and emails were not returned by ____ before publication.”
“____ did not respond to repeated requests for comment.”
The thought behind this strategy seems to be “we can survive one negative news story” that reflects poorly on our practices or reputation. Tomorrow is another day, a different story, and we will be out of the woods. The news media will move on.
There are times when the no response approach makes sense. A lot depends on the context, the level of interest in the story, the size of audience the journalist is reaching, and the expected life cycle of the story.
The no response approach also sits well with many who find themselves under intense scrutiny from the media. Everyone likes to avoid controversy and given a choice between engaging and saying nothing is often seen as an easy decision. A no brainer. And that is the problem. Refusing to respond has downstream consequences that need to be thought through.
Refusing to comment allows the audience the draw negative inferences
If there are two sides of the story, refusing to comment gives your opposition an open playing field to dominate the debate.
The internet is permanent. You may survive a one day news cycle and feel you have escaped unscathed, but in reality your refusal to comment lives on the permanent record and will always be there quietly and slowly damaging your reputation.
Bottom Line: The strategy of refusing to engage with the news media works in certain circumstances, but over the long term it is a harmful strategy to your brand and reputation. In our next post we’ll make an argument for direct engagement.