Two of the more frequent complaints about press coverage are when an article doesn't have critical information that a company or organization wants in an article and when an
article has an incorrect fact or a reporter has mischaracterized a company or organization position.
Most reporters don't set out to print or broadcast inaccurate information. Nor are they the house organ, obligated to print whatever the company or organization wants. The
reality is that in a 24/7 news environment mistakes are made because reporters are working on deadlines, don't have time to check all facts or just don't read their notes or press
material correctly.
The question is after a story first appears, how and when to correct the information and add the info the reporter missed. We'll get to the interview training techniques in a
moment. But before the next interview, strategies include calling the reporter or editor, issuing a press release with the correct information and posting the correct/missing
information on a Web site. Each of these has its pro's and con's. The internal discussion should be whether it's a fact that really needs correcting, an omission that's glaring or
one that is not significant enough to call further attention to.
So what's the proper strategy for left-out information or bad facts when you're facing a different reporter on the same subject? Again, this depends on a number of factors: 1.
Whether the reporter asked about the subject. 2. How important the fact or information is. 3. Whether you think that the reporter will use the bad information from another
publication without asking. 4. Whether you think other reporters will repeat the information from other sources without checking with you.
Here's a quick case study to illustrate the point: A pharmaceutical company had recently introduced a new drug that would benefit a large number of patients. The New York Times
published the "fact" that the new drug would help one million patients. That's a significant number. The company, however, believed it had data to show that the medicine would
benefit up to two million patients.
Now what? The company decided not to raise the issue in a press release or call to the reporter, but to be proactive and ready for subsequent interviews. This fact wasn't a
"bad" fact; it was however, inaccurate. If the next reporter asked how many people the drug would help, company spokespersons would clearly be ready. However, since the "fact" was
in the Times there was a strong possibility that a reporter from another paper wouldn't ask. When interview times are preciously short, and a fact has already appeared in the
Times, many reporters wouldn't bother to ask about this subject since they could use previously published information.
For this type of fact, the media coaching strategy is to prepare a message to deliver at some point in the interview. One way is via a "bridge" from any question, e.g. "Bob,
here's the answer to your question. If I may, I'd like to bring up something that we saw in another article and clarify the record. A previous report said that our drug would help
one million people. Our research suggests that it will be two million. Here's some additional data on the subject...."
No reporter likes to have incorrect information. Nor do they want to keep repeating inaccuracies from other media. On the other hand, you don't want to bash the first
publication by saying its reporter got it wrong. Journalists tend to defend their brethren. So by saying that you wish to "clarify" a point, you can politely interest the reporter
in the correct information. The other easy place to set the record straight is at the end of an interview when a reporter asks: "Is there anything else you would like to say? Or,
Did I miss anything?" That's a good place to bring up the correction/clarification.
The second type of situation is when it's a bad fact that you need clarified. Another case study: An article appeared in the British publication, Financial Times (FT) about an
American project in the Middle East. Although it was a "bad" fact, officials in Washington decided not to respond because the information had yet to show up in The Washington Post
or The New York Times. The business team handling the project was concerned about the item but didn't win the battle with the Washington-centric communications group. Sure enough,
the "bad" information showed up in a story in another publication, the South China Morning News, attributing the information to the FT. While these weren't U.S. papers, they were
significant media for those involved. In this case, the proactive strategy might have been to go to the press and clarify the "incorrect" item.
The strategy for key omitted information is very direct. In a subsequent interview, it's advisable for a spokesperson to say, "You know, Mary, I read a recent article about the
subject. One of the things that I think the reporter overlooked was...." Most reporters are anxious to learn new information or just old information that hasn't been printed or
broadcast in another outlet.
Andy Gilman is president of CommCore Consulting. He can be reached at 202.659.4177, [email protected]
How to Keep the Media Record Straight
- To the extent possible, follow all coverage about your company, organization or subject.
- In addition to reading for what information made it into the article, read or review for what didn't get in, or what was incorrect.
- Decided whether omissions or facts need to be responded to.
- Prepare proactive strategies to bring up the information or to create an interview setting where you can set the record straight.