In our last post we talked about the practice of refusing to engage with the news media as a means of avoiding scrutiny or criticism. We have noticed that in the fast paced news world we live in - in the internet news age - many government spokespeople and private companies think they can win the news cycle by ignoring requests to respond on the record.
We made the argument that the avoidance strategy may feel like a win on the morning after, but since internet publishing is permanent, the record of failure to cooperate is always there and is therefore always nicking away at your reputation by allowing viewers to draw their own, un-challenged, negative inferences.
In most cases, we prefer to engage with the news media, or members of the public when questions are asked. Here’s why:
Every time you are asked for a comment you are being given access not only to the reporter asking the question, but to the reporter’s audience. It could be hundreds, thousands, even millions of people - depending on the story.
In matters that involve at least two competing ideas, choosing to engage makes you part of the conversation. Refusing to engage takes you out of the conversation.
In matters that might negatively effect your reputation, refusing to engage leads the viewer or reader to conclude only the worst about you. In the court of public opinion “no comment” can be and will be used to against you.
The internet is permanent. The record is always there. Do you want the record to be a blank slate for others to fill in or do you want to fill in the record yourself, on your terms, in the language you prefer?
Bottom Line: Refusing to comment for a day may feel like a public relations win, but over the long term it does not reflect well on you or your organization.