A journalist says they’re publishing about you. What should you do?

Shock, or confirmation

When a journalist emails to say they are preparing to publish a story about you, the reaction is rarely neutral. In some cases, the message arrives entirely without warning. There has been no obvious dispute, no sense of scrutiny, and yet you are suddenly confronted with a formal request for comment. In other cases, it confirms a concern that has been sitting quietly in the background, perhaps connected to an unresolved complaint, a professional disagreement, a regulatory issue or a strained relationship that never fully settled.

Whether the enquiry feels unexpected or inevitable, the instinctive responses are usually the same. Reply immediately and defend yourself, or disengage entirely in the hope that the issue disappears. Neither approach is strategic. The period between receiving that email and publication is often the most important stage in determining how serious the reputational impact becomes.

What a pre-publication enquiry usually looks like

Most pre-publication emails are procedural in tone, even when the subject matter is serious. They often follow a structure similar to this:

Subject: Request for comment

Dear [Name],

We are preparing a story concerning [brief description of issue].

We have been informed that [summary of allegation or claim].

We would like to offer you the opportunity to respond to the following points:

– [Allegation one]
– [Allegation two]
– [Allegation three]

We are due to publish at [time/date] and would appreciate any comment by [deadline].

Kind regards,
[Journalist’s Name]
[Publication]

Seeing allegations written out formally can feel destabilising. Structurally, however, this is standard editorial practice. It is usually part of an effort to ensure fairness and reduce legal risk.

Confirming the enquiry is legitimate

Before drafting any response, establish that the email is genuine. It is not uncommon for individuals to receive messages claiming to be from journalists that are in fact fabricated. These may be pranks, attempts at intimidation or efforts to provoke panic.

Research the journalist’s name and verify whether they have published work under that byline. Confirm that the publication exists and appears credible. Examine the email address carefully. While a branded domain offers reassurance, the use of Gmail does not automatically indicate fraud. Many freelance journalists use personal email accounts legitimately. What matters is whether the name, outlet and public footprint align consistently.

If uncertainty remains, contact the publication directly using the contact details listed on its official website to confirm the journalist’s affiliation.

Legal position in the UK and the United States

In both the United Kingdom and the United States, journalists are generally permitted to contact individuals and publish stories about them, provided they remain within legal boundaries. The act of seeking comment is not unlawful.

In the UK, relevant legal considerations frequently include defamation, privacy, data protection and, where applicable, contempt of court. In the US, defamation law applies as well, though the legal thresholds and constitutional protections differ, particularly for public figures. Whether something is legally actionable depends on specific wording, evidential support and context.

It is important to recognise that something can feel deeply unfair without meeting the legal threshold for intervention.

Do you have to respond?

In most cases, there is no legal obligation to reply. You are entitled to decline comment.

However, declining to respond does not prevent publication. Most outlets will include wording such as “X was contacted for comment but did not respond.” While technically neutral, this can influence how readers interpret the story.

Choosing not to respond should therefore be a deliberate decision rather than a reflex.

Timing pressure and practical realities

Journalistic deadlines are often tight. You may be given 24 hours or less to respond, particularly in digital news cycles. From your perspective, this may feel unreasonable, especially where the issues raised are complex and require consultation with colleagues or legal advisers.

Journalists operate within structured editorial timelines. Print deadlines, digital publication schedules and editorial approval processes all contribute to compressed timeframes. While this does not remove the pressure you feel, understanding that the timing is structural rather than personal can assist in maintaining composure.

It is also advisable to check junk and spam folders carefully. There have been many instances in which enquiries were discovered only after publication because they were filtered incorrectly.

If additional time is genuinely required, it is appropriate to request a short extension so that you can respond accurately. While extensions are not guaranteed, a professional request demonstrates engagement. Where a full response cannot be prepared in time, a brief holding statement is often preferable to silence.

When you should generally respond

As a general principle, responding is advisable where the claims are factually incorrect, materially misleading or lacking significant context. Silence in such circumstances allows inaccuracies to stand unchallenged and increases the risk of replication.

Responding is also prudent where reputational, contractual or employment consequences are foreseeable. If stakeholders, clients, investors or employers may read the article, the presence of your perspective within the piece may mitigate secondary fallout.

When caution may be appropriate

Where active criminal proceedings, regulatory investigations or formal legal disputes are ongoing, statements can carry legal consequences. In such situations, alignment with legal counsel is essential. There may also be circumstances where responding extensively risks amplifying a marginal or speculative story. These decisions are context-specific and should not be made impulsively.

In any scenario involving meaningful legal or reputational risk, consultation with both a solicitor or attorney and an experienced communications professional is strongly recommended.

Handling allegations carefully

Where allegations are involved, precision becomes critical. It is remarkably easy to sound defensive or emotional in writing, particularly when responding under pressure. Emotional phrasing can distort meaning. Casual language can be lifted out of context. A sentence intended as clarification can be framed as an admission.

When addressing allegations, separate fact from interpretation. Correct inaccuracies clearly and calmly. Where elements are partially accurate but misleading, distinguish between what is correct and what requires context. Avoid speculation and avoid introducing new issues that were not raised.

Never provide information that you are not certain is accurate. Attempts to minimise or deny facts that later emerge can transform a contained issue into a more serious secondary controversy centred on credibility.

How to structure your response

A strong response is structured, concise and factual. It should acknowledge the enquiry, address the specific points raised and avoid unnecessary emotion.

Begin by thanking the journalist for the opportunity to comment. Then address each allegation directly and separately. If they have listed specific points, respond in order. This reduces the risk of misinterpretation and demonstrates engagement with substance.

Provide factual corrections clearly and without exaggeration. If documentation exists, reference it briefly rather than attaching excessive material unless necessary. If you are unable to comment on certain aspects due to legal or confidentiality constraints, state that professionally.

A simple structure might look like this:

Dear [Journalist’s Name],

Thank you for your email and for the opportunity to comment.

In relation to the points raised:

Regarding [Allegation one], this is incorrect. [Brief factual correction.]

Regarding [Allegation two], while it is accurate that [factual element], it is misleading to suggest that [clarification].

Regarding [Allegation three], due to ongoing legal proceedings, we are unable to comment further at this time. We are cooperating fully with the relevant authorities.

Please let me know if you require any further clarification.

Kind regards,
[Your Name]

The key is clarity and restraint. Journalists often quote the clearest sentence from a response. Ensure that sentence reflects your position accurately.

“Without prejudice”, “off the record” and other email wording

At this stage, people often search for protective language to include in their reply. Phrases such as “without prejudice”, “strictly private and confidential”, or “off the record” are frequently added to emails in the hope that they limit what can be used or published.

It is important to understand what these phrases actually mean. “Without prejudice” is a legal term typically used in genuine settlement negotiations. Simply writing it at the top of an email to a journalist does not automatically prevent your words from being quoted.

Marking an email “strictly private and confidential” does not stop a journalist from reporting its contents if there is no prior agreement about confidentiality. Similarly, “off the record” only has effect if both parties agree to it before the information is shared. You cannot retroactively declare something off the record after sending it.

In practical terms, you should assume that anything you put in writing may be used unless there is a clear, mutually agreed arrangement to the contrary.

One article rarely stays as one article

If inaccurate information is published, it is unlikely to remain confined to a single outlet. When a national newspaper runs a story, smaller publications often replicate or summarise it. It is common to see multiple secondary pieces appear within hours.

Individually, these outlets may seem minor. Collectively, they shape search results. When someone searches your name and encounters numerous articles repeating the same narrative, repetition can create the impression of confirmation.

Correcting inaccuracies before publication is therefore significantly more effective than attempting to address them after replication.

Professional support

Where allegations involve criminal conduct, safeguarding, financial misconduct, regulatory exposure or substantial commercial risk, professional advice is essential. Legal and communications strategies must align. An ill-considered statement can undermine legal defence, while a purely legal response that neglects reputational consequences can create preventable long-term damage.

If you are unsure how serious the situation is, speaking to someone experienced before sending anything substantial can prevent avoidable mistakes.

So….

A pre-publication enquiry is uncomfortable, but it is also a moment of influence. It is the point at which you can still shape framing, correct inaccuracies and manage risk before replication begins.

The decisive factor is rarely the existence of the article itself. It is how you handle the space between initial contact and publication.

Composure, verification, strategic judgement and disciplined communication contain risk. Reactivity and poorly structured responses magnify it.