That's Not What I Said
Your latest media interview may have gone well, then the published article turns out to be disappointing. The headline is disconcerting and the angle is not what you expected. The article casts your story in the wrong light. Worse yet, the article would trigger a reputational nightmare – e.g. you are misquoted, and the article contains damaging factual errors.
When, and how, should you request corrections from the media to set the record straight? It's a tough decision. Your urge to issue a formal correction or denial may call more attention to a mistake that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. Sometimes, doing nothing is your best course of action – “it’s urgent to wait,” to quote Molière.
Making Things Worse While Trying to Course Correct
Consider a 2007 interview of French President Jacques Chirac by The New York Times. After seeing his remarks in print, Chirac’s media team insisted on a second interview to set the record straight. Two front page interviews published on two consecutive days. The second retracted comments made in the first, notably about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. The President’s media team also circulated a press release reiterating France’s official position on the issue.
The Times’ editorial team highlighted Chirac’s contradictory statements, saying they raised questions: “Did they reflect assumptions inconsistent with the policy France and its allies are pursuing? Did he reveal misconceptions about nuclear deterrence? And has Chirac, who suffered a neurological episode in 2005 and is three months from the end of his second term, lost his ability to function as head of state?”
The opinion piece concluded on a reassuring note, but the reputational damage was already done.
Factual and Data Errors
No one likes to admit they’re wrong but everyone makes mistakes, including journalists. Serious factual errors should be corrected, especially those found in online publications as they are likely to endure. Reputable media outlets will usually have policies and procedures in place to make corrections when approriate.
For example, if an erroneous sales figure could get your company into trouble with investors or stock market regulators, try to correct this quickly. Work with your legal, finance and public relations teams to request a correction. Spell out the mistake and provide back-up in support of your corrected information. Be sure to also circulate this corrected information to other media outlets while referring to the initial erroneous article.
Last — as always when dealing with the media — remain calm and professional at all times. Avoid the temptation to threaten a media outlet with a lawsuit. Litigation should be a last resort, used only if and when all other approaches have failed.
What is Published is Different from What You Expected
Maybe the content of the article is factually correct but the angle of the piece, or the headline, bothers you. Keep in mind that the role of a headline is to attract attention, and the journalist may not have written it. Contrary to popular belief, editors usually write the headlines, not the journalists.
If a journalist took shortcuts, or an editor cut sentences that alter the meaning of your statements, then you may indeed want to request a correction for the record.
However, it’s also possible that your remarks simply prompted the journalist to focus on a different angle than the one you were trying to push during your interview. This is fair game for journalists, and you are unlikely to get a correction just because you dislike the published article.
For example, you may have stated that your company is pursuing opportunities in China, but the journalist chose to focus instead on the risks of doing business in China. Again, this is fair game, and all you can do is follow up with the journalist to provide better examples in support of your strategy. If you can’t get another, more favorable article from the original journalist, then you may have to arrange a new interview at another media outlet to try to set the record straight. (Additional media training may be useful to get your messages across more effectively, as I’ve written about here.)
Conclusion
When an article is different from what you expected you have to decide, “How much of a problem is it really?” Consider what you must absolutely correct versus what you would simply wish to clarify. Consider how flexible you can be. Do you need an official correction in the print edition, or will an update to the online article be enough? Is the correction essential for your business ? Is this a publication you want or need to keep working with in the future?
If the article is factually inaccurate and damages your company’s reputation, then it is indeed worth fighting to correct. However, if it’s just an unpleasant angle or an attention-grabbing headline, it will likely be washed away by the next news cycle anyway without your intervention.
Cultivating an ongoing dialogue with journalists will improve their understanding of your company’s strategy and performance, leading to better media coverage. Investing time in developing relationships with journalists will help avoid errors, or facilitate fixing them quickly should they arise.