In the main, most PRs do not tend to deny stories even if they are wrong, preferring instead to hide behind the ‘no comment’ excuse. They do so because it is a safer strategy. PRs who constantly deny incorrect stories find themselves in a hole when the journalist finally calls with a real, live scoop. What do they say? It may not be appropriate to confirm its veracity, particularly if the issue is sensitive, such as job losses – which most companies would rather tell their employees about before the news appears in the media.
Also, having a policy of denying incorrect stories open PRs up to the dangers of fishing expeditions. For example, if a company is poised to appoint a new chief executive, then journalists will just keep putting forward the names of potential candidates – hoping that a change in tone or reply reveals the correct answer.
Some PRs do, however, abuse the denial strategy. They take the view that if a journalist is missing part of a story, or perhaps has an incorrect detail, it is perfectly in order to issue a denial of the whole shebang. They are being pedantic. And they are misusing their power. Journalists tend not to forget PRs who have behaved like this.
