A journalist has contacted me. What should I do?
An email from a journalist can make an otherwise normal day feel very strange. You open it expecting a routine question, read the words “we are preparing a story”, and suddenly find yourself mentally explaining the situation to everyone you have ever met. Your customers. Your parents. That person who already dislikes you and will undoubtedly have a lovely afternoon with this.
If a journalist has contacted you about a potentially negative story, start by checking who they are, what they are asking and when they need an answer. Save the original message. Give yourself enough space to read it properly before sending a detailed response. You may need to act quickly, but there is usually a difference between dealing with a deadline and replying in the first thirty seconds because your stomach has dropped.
The useful question is what the enquiry actually contains. Has someone made a specific allegation? Is the journalist checking an event you can document? Are they asking for your view on somebody else’s behaviour? Those require different responses. Being contacted does not, by itself, tell you how much evidence exists, what will be published or how much attention it will receive.
Read the questions before you start defending yourself
Read the email again and separate the requests from your assumptions. Write down the deadline, the publication, the claims being put to you and anything that is unclear. If the wording is vague, ask for the specific points they want you to address. You cannot give a useful answer to an accusation you are having to invent in your own head.
Then establish that the enquiry is genuine. Look for the journalist’s published work and check their connection to the outlet. A freelance journalist may legitimately use a personal email address, so that alone tells you very little. If something feels wrong, contact the publication through independently verified details. Avoid opening unexpected attachments or handing over private information simply because someone has put “press” in their signature.
If the deadline is difficult, ask whether an extension is possible and suggest a realistic time. Explain briefly what you need to check. They may agree, or they may continue without it, so do not assume the clock has stopped until that is confirmed. A request for more time should also avoid making promises about documents or a response you may be unable to provide.
Work out what you can actually establish
Before drafting your position, gather the material that would help someone else understand it. That might be a dated email, an original photograph, an agreement or a complete conversation. Keep original files and record where they came from. A screenshot of one message can look persuasive until the message immediately before it changes the meaning, which is an unpleasant discovery to make after sending your denial.
Make a simple distinction between what you know, what somebody has told you and what you suspect. Perhaps you know when a customer received a refund, but only suspect who contacted the press. The refund may help answer the story. Your theory about the source may achieve very little. Be especially careful with confident words such as “never”, “everyone” and “completely” when you have not checked the records.
For a business, identify one person to coordinate the response. Staff should know where to forward enquiries, including messages that arrive through social media or a shop telephone. Otherwise, a journalist can receive three different explanations from three helpful people, leaving you to explain why your own organisation cannot agree. Nobody needs to be blamed for trying to help; they need a clear process.
If there are court proceedings, serious allegations, private information or employment issues involved, bring in the relevant solicitor before sharing a substantive response. I work on the communications alongside legal advisers. Tell both sides what the other is doing, including any deadlines. It is difficult to coordinate a careful response when somebody discovers halfway through that an angry email has already been sent separately.
Decide what a response would achieve
There are good reasons to engage with a journalist. You may be able to correct a date, supply missing context or demonstrate that a central claim is wrong. There are also situations where a detailed answer would disclose something private, compromise another process or introduce a story that was not previously being pursued. The decision needs to come from the facts of the enquiry, rather than a universal rule about always speaking or always staying silent.
Consider a hypothetical business accused of ignoring a complaint. It may have replied several times, but to an incorrect address. “We never ignore customers” does not resolve that discrepancy. A useful response would explain what the records show, acknowledge that the customer did not receive the replies and describe how contact is now being made. You can correct an inaccurate account while recognising that somebody still had a poor experience.
Equally, you do not need to accept the premise of a question that is factually wrong. Address the specific error and provide the relevant support where it is appropriate to share. A concise correction gives the journalist something they can check. A long account of how upsetting the accusation feels may be entirely understandable, but it does not establish whether it is accurate.
An acknowledgement or holding response can be useful while enquiries continue, provided it says something true and fits the situation. Avoid claiming that an investigation is underway if nobody has started one, or that authorities are involved if they are not. Borrowed crisis language can create fresh questions surprisingly quickly. Sometimes the most useful early reply simply clarifies the request and agrees when you will respond.
Write for someone who does not know the backstory
Once you decide to respond, answer the important points clearly. If there are several allegations, organise the response so it is obvious which answer belongs to which claim. Explain any supporting material rather than attaching a folder and expecting the journalist to solve it. Check attachments carefully for information about employees, customers or other people that should not be shared.
Read the draft as though you have no personal connection to the situation. Does it answer the question? Does it acknowledge what happened? Is there a sentence that sounds dismissive when separated from everything around it? You may feel that a journalist ought to understand your tone, but they have words on a screen. Sarcasm is especially risky here. It travels beautifully when you would rather it stayed at home.
Be clear about the terms of any conversation before sharing sensitive information. Do not assume a friendly telephone call is private, or that labelling something “off the record” after saying it changes the arrangement. Newsrooms have their own practices, so establish what is agreed and what may be attributed to you. Reuters’ published standards emphasise clear ground rules and explain that it does not submit stories to sources for approval. An opportunity to comment is not editorial control.
If the enquiry becomes an interview request, clarify the format before agreeing: live or recorded, telephone or camera, and the subject they want to cover. Ask who else is taking part where relevant. An interview needs preparation beyond having a statement ready. Practise explaining the key facts aloud and handling questions you cannot answer. You can ask for clarification or say you need to check something; guessing to avoid a pause is rarely helpful. Media training can make that unfamiliar situation feel more manageable without turning you into a rehearsed spokesperson.
Prepare for the article as well as the email
Think about who might need to hear from you directly if the story runs. A customer facing an actual disruption needs practical information. Staff may need reassurance about their work and instructions for handling questions. Neither necessarily needs your full press response forwarded without explanation. Plan the timing carefully, and avoid alerting a much wider audience to a minor enquiry simply because you feel compelled to tell everyone first.
If an article is published, read the whole piece before reacting to its headline. Record factual inaccuracies precisely, with supporting evidence and the correction you are seeking. For publications regulated by IPSO, the Editors’ Code includes requirements concerning accuracy and corrections. Check which complaints route applies to the particular outlet. Disliking an article and identifying an error are different starting points, and a complaint should make clear what can be demonstrated.
Keep track of follow-up coverage without spending the entire day refreshing your name. If an error has been corrected, check whether copies elsewhere still repeat it. If the article is accurate but difficult, the work may involve answering important people’s questions and making meaningful changes. A public argument with the journalist is not automatically useful just because the article has upset you.
You can contact me for crisis PR support before replying, even if you are unsure how serious the enquiry is. Send the original email, the deadline and whatever background you can manage. I can help assess the situation, prepare wording and handle journalist communications where needed. You do not need to become your own press officer in the middle of a horrible afternoon. We can work through what needs doing, and what can wait.