Journalists are often confronted by the question - why is the media so fickle? The example of a high profile company, which is now in a downturn, is most commonly quoted. A typical comment is "once they were the darling of the media, but now the knives are out". The implication being that the media is solely and maliciously responsible for creating negative perceptions in the market place.
My opinion is otherwise. The media is not hell-bent on the demolition of the reputation of all and sundry in their sights. On the whole, the media reflects rather than creates perceptions that are fermenting in the market place.
I do not believe in the concept of "objective journalism", as everyone's perceptions are inevitably coloured by his or her own experience. But most credible journalists do take pride in being as balanced and accurate as possible. After all their own reputation stands and falls by what they broadcast or publish.
The issue is not to blame the media, but to examine how the company manages its image during both the good and the bad times. How effectively is it communicating with all its publics? And that includes the media.
Invariably in a crisis, the attitude is shut the door, batten down the hatches. The less one says, the less damaging. I totally agree with the public relations experts who say that damage control is better served by credible and ongoing communication driven by a clever, strategic management plan.
You see in the end there is nowhere to hide. Whether one chooses to comment or not, the media will always have something to say. In extreme cases, even resort to what journalists call "door stopping". This is our terminology for getting a foot in the door by confronting the target on their very own doorstep. A scenario that is mostly embarrassing and inelegant for the party concerned, but makes for dramatic and titillating television.
So be smart, don't say "no comment". Use the opportunity to promote and manage your image and profile.
