Top Tips: handling negative press

It is easy to think of recent examples of people/organisations handling negative press poorly, in a way that has served only to worsen the situation; here are my top tips to try and avoid that.

1. Try to avoid reacting emotionally: the adage act in haste, repent at leisure can ring true here.  Your first instinct may be, understandably, to go on the offensive, including issuing a total denial/rebuttal.  Making a statement which is later proven to be incorrect or incomplete can do far more harm than taking the time to investigate and making a complete statement later or indeed deciding to make no statement at all, hopefully allowing the news to blow over. 
    
2. Categorise the story: is it factually inaccurate, misleading/lacking balance, defamatory and/or does it represent a breach of confidence or privacy? 
   
   If press reports are factually wrong, misleading or lacking in balance, the best course of action for resolving these issues is usually to engage with the journalist or author directly and seek a correction or amendment/addition and, where appropriate, an apology.  Factual inaccuracies should be clearly identified, with appropriate evidence, and you can reasonably expect that reputable journalists and authors would make the necessary changes. You may also be able to engage with a journalist or author to include additional information to make the story more balanced.  You could also make contact with the editor/producer/board if you are not satisfied with how the journalist or author is dealing with the issues.
   
   If the publication is regulated by IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation), reference can be made to the Editors' Code of Practice (other publications may have their own code of practice).  Complaints can also be made to IPSO directly but that won't help you tackle the immediate issue of negative press.
   
   If the story is defamatory and/or represents a breach of confidence or privacy, then it is usually still advisable to engage with the journalist or author (or, perhaps, the editor/board), particularly if approached for comment pre-publication.  If this is unsuccessful or time is very short and publication is likely to have, or has had, significant detrimental impact or there is a risk of harm, then court action may be required.  This can include seeking an injunction to prevent publication.  Bear in mind that for an organisation which trades for profit to make a defamation claim, you have to show the organisation has suffered, or is likely to suffer, serious financial loss, not just reputational damage.
    
3. Ask yourself who is your audience and whose opinion matters to you? Bear in mind that any engagement you may have in response to negative stories, particularly on social media, may be viewed many times more than the original story/post.   Dealing badly with negative stories or posts can add fuel to the fire and may get you nowhere in terms of changing the narrative.  
   
   If the story/post contains something which may need investigation, for example a potentially genuine complaint by a service user or customer, then try to move the discussion away from social media platforms, where others will have a ringside seat, to a private forum such as direct communications with your complaints team.  Avoid getting dragged into a protracted back and forth on social media where the people who may see this interaction could be far more significant to your business, such as your potential customer/client base, than the original poster.
   
   The most important part of handling negative press may not be what any public statement says, if you decide to make one, it may instead be the communications to those whose opinions matter most; for example, investors, lenders, stakeholders, customers/clients, employees and regulators.  These communications can be tailored to the concerns of the recipients and can provide background information that you may not want to put into the public domain.  
    
4. Counter with a positive press campaign: you may have been able to mitigate some of the negatived press through the steps outlined above but in any event getting positive press out there can be very helpful to dilute reputational damage.  This could be press which undermines or counterbalances the negative story, or simply other positive press.  This positive press campaign could help drive traffic to your positive stories and away from the negative press. This can be particularly important if the original, negative, press is true to some extent.
   
   Remember people may judge you/your organisation far more harshly for responding badly to the negative press than they do for the original story.