Why "No Comment" Damages Reputation

It’s surprising that some organisations still believe that if they offer no response to a journalist with a negative story, the media will simply drop it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Ignoring the issue won’t make it go away.

It doesn’t matter if your organisation has had a long-running love-hate relationship with a journalist or a specific media outlet. Our general advice at Empica is clear: “No comment is no option.”

Responding to negative media coverage isn’t just about crisis management; it’s part of a broader PR strategy. As we explain in our Public Relations Explained guide, strong communication builds trust and protects reputation.

Why You Should Always Respond to Journalists

So, why should an individual or an organisation respond to a negative question? Even more so, why respond if the negative article seems based on factual inaccuracies?

The answer is simple: to correct those inaccuracies and present the full facts. Otherwise, with ‘no comment,’ readers will assume that what has been published is the truth.

When a disgruntled customer or member of the public approaches a journalist with a complaint, and the journalist deems it newsworthy, that story WILL be published. Most journalists will give the organisation or individual the ‘right to reply’ and an opportunity to respond. After all, there are usually two sides to every story.

When faced with a negative question from a journalist, it’s crucial to ask one simple question: Who do we really want to talk to? Who needs to know what we have to say?

The answer is rarely the journalist. Instead, it’s more likely to be our customers, service users, stakeholders, business partners, or the general public living near our location.

The Case of the Housing Provider

Consider a housing provider. A tenant complains about long-overdue repairs. A journalist visits the home, takes pictures, and hears the tenant's story. When the journalist approaches the housing provider for a response, they say, “No Comment.”

What does that say—not to the journalist, but to the readers? What does it communicate to the housing provider’s other tenants? What does it imply to prospective tenants? It can be interpreted as “We don’t care, we’re not interested, we don’t want to know.”

Is that the kind of reputation you want?

What if the tenant claims they haven’t seen anyone from the housing provider for months? In reality, there have been communications and even a meeting. It may not have led to a satisfactory outcome for the tenant, but it did happen.

“No Comment” doesn’t tell that side of the story.

The Impact of Silence

There are two common phrases you hear about newspapers: “You can’t believe anything you read” and “If it wasn’t true, they wouldn’t be able to print it.”

The latter implies that if something appears in print, readers will likely believe it. If you or your organisation aren’t providing the facts, the assumption will be that the allegations are correct. You’re not responding because you’ve been found out! The truth has been uncovered, and you are embarrassed.

You may choose not to comment because you believe a particular newspaper consistently takes a negative stance towards your organisation. However, it’s essential to rise above that. Your intention is not to communicate with the journalist or the newspaper; you need to reach a wider audience.

The Wider Audience

Your message is more likely aimed at someone other than the media. The newspaper serves as a conduit, not the receiver of the message.

In situations where there are no clear answers, one party believes they are right, and your organisation believes it is right.

Smart Alternatives to Saying Nothing

Of course, there is no definitive PR textbook. Every story is different, and there may be occasions when it’s simply not advisable to comment at all.

However, there is usually something you can say that is tantamount to ‘no comment’ but expressed in a less dismissive manner.

For example, you might say, “We are aware of this tenant’s concerns, and we take them very seriously. We have met or are meeting the person concerned and hope to reach a satisfactory outcome very soon.”

While it doesn’t say much, it communicates that you are aware, you care, and you are engaged in resolving the issue.

Building Long-Term Trust Through Transparency

For maximum credibility, ensure that this is not just lip service; you must take action. From a reputation point of view, any personal prejudices against a particular journalist or media outlet should be set aside in favour of the bigger picture.

You have something to say to a wider audience, and that local newspaper is likely one of the best ways to get your message out there.

Negative allegations—even if factually incorrect—can be reputationally damaging, especially if they are not responded to.

Respond whenever possible. Present the facts, express that you care, and show that you want to resolve the matter. If you truly care about your reputation, as an individual or organisation, the general rule should be: “No comment” is no option.

---

Darren Bane

Darren Bane is a former journalist with more than 35 years of experience in interviewing and being interviewed. Darren worked on weekly and daily newspapers before taking on PR roles with Avon and Somerset Police, Avon Fire & Rescue, and Weston College. Find out more about our PR services, including media training, and contact us for a more detailed discussion.