Dealing With Contentious Media Interviews

 

Handling contentious media issues is far more complex than can be covered in one short article, nonetheless, read on for thoughts that might be helpful when a reporter asks for an interview when it is clear that the outcome will not be good.

Interviews that are likely to be negative should not be unilaterally avoided. Instead, deciding whether or not and how to take these requests is part of an intentional management strategy. You can’t control a reporter’s story but you can control your company’s response and conduct.

Never base the decision to grant an interview on the chance that you will change the reporter’s mind or influence the story outcome. Instead, consider truths like facts, or that your company’s role in the issue may not be accurately understood, or that the reporter has significant misinformation that can be corrected. Consider taking an interview if there are critical, incontrovertible facts or data that should come out. Likewise, consider taking interviews when stories are based on outlandish or fabricated information that needs to be corrected.

Always respond in some manner.

I generally recommend responding in some fashion to nearly every request for interviews or written comments. The easiest and usually the safest way to deal with such queries is to acknowledge that the request has been received and that it is being processed as quickly as possible. Say no more.

Here’s an example of the first response:

Thank you for reaching out. I wanted to let you know your query has been received. Someone will get back to you as soon as possible.

In the meantime, gather all the information you can including a detailed review of the reporter’s work and more generally, the publication’s. Likewise, evaluate your assets and vulnerabilities. Know the situation and look at all options.

Wait until the second interaction to request additional information from the reporter. If they are on deadline, they will either have stated so in their first query or will do so when responding to this one. It might be that the decided course of action is ultimately to not engage at all, yet in most cases acknowledging receipt of the first query is advised.

Ask the reporter for their questions.

In the second email exchange, ask for the reporter’s questions before making any hint that anyone from the company will be available for an interview or that written comments will be supplied. Why should one not ask for questions in the first email? The reasons are that first, you don’t want to commit and then change your mind, and second, slowing things down might be to your advantage.

This is one value of having external PR; consultants can function as intermediaries and either speed up or slow down interactions. Because external consultants are not company spokespersons (unless specifically empowered to do so) they are not able to give comments, which makes it easier to buffer the flow of correspondence.

Here’s an example of a brief second response:

Thank you again for reaching out. I’ll do my best to help. Please send along a list of questions so that we can determine the best way to assist you.

At some point further into the email exchanges, ask the reporter about anyone else they have interviewed (or plan to interview). If they can’t supply names (which isn’t unexpected), they might be able to give general comments about the people with whom they have spoken. If they have already interviewed several other people and your company is obviously last on the list, then the reporter probably already has their story and engaging any further is a formality and could possibly not be of benefit.

Once the reporter has sent over their questions and you’ve obtained as much information as possible, you’re in a much better position to determine the next steps: whether to take the interview, to submit a written response, or to ignore the request.

If you don’t already know the reporter’s work, dive in quickly.

Regardless of any decided action or inaction, learn about the reporter’s style, their motivation, and their beat. Similarly, determine the publication’s mission and motivation.

There are small clues to help here. For example, a general assignment reporter may have been pulled into a breaking story because there isn’t an expert on the team. If that is the case, you might be able to speak with them “on background” to suggest other sources or explain factors and technology they may not understand.

Articles are often about controversy and conflict. This is not a bad thing. Our society needs this kind of reporting. Hard hitting journalism is vital and I am grateful for the work that journalists do to shed light into dark corners. Nonetheless, the professional’s responsibility to support their brand means that they consider every possible outcome when determining if they will engage.

Consider your spokesperson’s acumen.

If it is determined that an interview will be given, know your spokesperson’s skill, knowledge, and temperament. If they are easily rattled or drawn into arguments, do not use them for difficult interviews. Likewise, be sure your spokesperson knows that bluster and intimidation are not appropriate nor successful. A reporter’s opinion and angle will almost never change for the better in an interview, but it can certainly change for the worse and if the spokesperson’s conduct isn’t professional, they may do long-term damage to the relationship. If no one is of the right temperament and knowledge to handle a contentious interview do not give one. Submit a written response instead.

Written responses are a good compromise.

Written responses make it easier to clearly state facts and maintain consistency. If you are dealing with a very big issue and many reporters are trying to get an interview or a statement from the company, supplying written responses means every reporter gets the same information and the same attention.

Another reason for a written response is that it avoids the dreaded “no comment” or that “requests from the company went unanswered” statement in the story. This looks bad and is often a missed opportunity.

Use timing to your advantage.

I’ve just spent 1,000 words advising to always respond to reporter queries, yet there are cases where timing can be artfully managed to not only give the team more time to gather facts and prepare, but also to manage the response – even no response. For example, it is not unexpected that interview requests arriving after business hours cannot be addressed until the next day. Likewise, requests with 2- or 3-hour turn-arounds might be impossible to meet. Weigh each case carefully. If a response is not going to help and could potentially exacerbate the problem, then use the response window judiciously.

Use owned channels for balance. But think it through carefully.

Lastly, when your company is faced with a contentious media issue, weigh the potential to use owned channels and other external sources to counter or clarify issues that surface in external outlets. It can be tempting to quickly publish a direct response to an article on social properties or on the company blog, but responses are not always warranted and sometimes could make things worse.

The degree to which your company engages an issue validates the issue’s legitimacy. In other words, issues that are baseless, inflated, or misconstrued sometimes are best left ignored. If you do choose to clarify anything, start with a light touch. It is smart to have pre-written responses in case the issue escalates, but if one article lands and there is a smattering of social media chatter, a response may not be necessary or prudent. Instead, monitor the situation and then respond only if the issue starts to gain momentum.

One article cannot do justice to the complexities of dealing with potentially contentious interviews but if I have one overall point to make it is to prepare for everything. Additionally, remember that when a reporter reaches out, how and when you respond is a viable element of managing the issue. Use that opportunity wisely.

Important note: This advice does not apply to issues of life-or-death, public or personal safety, or moral imperative. Rather this advice is for dealing with issues related to perceptions, brand issues, and matters of that nature. If you have specific questions or comments, message me on LinkedIn or on my contact page at pandopublicrelations.com

This was originally published in PR in EdTech on LinkedIn on March 13, 2025.