When Companies Misread Media Intent
Building trust with reporters who have published unfavorable but accurate stories is one of the hardest parts of public relations. For many executives, it feels personal—even when the reporting is not. Negative coverage often sparks the perception that a reporter is “out to get them,” leading companies to cut off future contact.
But here’s the reality: the reporters companies tend to avoid are usually the most knowledgeable, interested, and consistent in their coverage. Ignoring them may reduce control over the narrative, but it rarely stops the story. If anything, it weakens the company’s ability to shape how it is told.
Stories Are Snapshots, Not Final Judgments
One case we handled involved a major pharmaceutical company that had stopped engaging with an Associated Press reporter. This journalist had written an unfavorable—but factually accurate—story on an FDA setback. The company felt the tone lacked optimism, though they admitted the piece wasn’t incorrect.
Their solution? Ignore the reporter.
But the result was predictable: shorter coverage, no original quotes, and further tension. We stepped in, leveraging our established relationship with the journalist. After arranging several off-the-record briefings and early interviews on key announcements, trust was rebuilt. Eventually, coverage became not only more detailed but more balanced. Neither side changed the facts—they just started talking again.
Follow the Facts, Not the Feelings
A respected biotech professor and entrepreneur came to us after facing widespread allegations of misconduct—later proven false. Major outlets like The Wall Street Journal and STAT News had picked up the story based on incomplete data published in a niche trade journal. Once the truth was verified, the client wanted nothing more to do with those reporters.
But rather than burning bridges, we helped him reengage.
We offered complete, verified documentation, and worked to help journalists understand the full picture. The result: thorough corrections, major follow-up features—including a front-page piece in The Boston Globe—and a total narrative shift.
Read Also
Practical Steps to Rebuild Media Relationships
1. Analyze the Reporter’s Work Objectively
Examine past coverage. Was it accurate? Did the reporter use credible sources? Many stories are snapshots of difficult moments—not personal attacks.
2. Understand Their Reputation and Process
Speak with peers in the PR industry who’ve worked with the reporter. A consistent, fact-following journalist is always worth your time, even if their stories sting.
3. Educate the Client
Help clients understand journalistic standards and norms. Present the reporter’s track record, and allow the client to help decide on next steps with transparency and intent.
4. Be Proactive and Honest
When approaching future stories, provide new information early, and clarify any misunderstandings from previous encounters. Avoiding questions makes a company seem secretive—even when it’s not.
5. Provide Context, Not Just Control
Offer reporters the backstory: what happened, what went wrong, how it’s being fixed, and what comes next. Transparency can shift tone, even if the facts stay the same.
Silence Doesn’t Help—Dialogue Does
Many companies believe the best way to handle a difficult journalist is to shut down communication. But building trust with reporters requires the opposite approach. Be honest, be strategic, and above all, stay engaged. When clients understand how to navigate tough coverage, the outcome often evolves from conflict to collaboration.
Reporters want accuracy. Clients want fairness. Skilled communicators can deliver both—and improve outcomes not only for brands, but for readers who deserve the full story.