Public relations specialists vastly outnumber journalists in the United States. According to the most recent estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were nearly 310,000 P.R. specialists in the U.S. in 2023 – and only 49,800 journalists.
Dealing with corporate and government spokespeople, in other words, is an inevitable part of the job for most reporters. For beat reporters, in particular, those relationships can be important. P.R. specialists are potentially valuable sources. They can also facilitate access to the executives and officials who run their companies and agencies. At the very least, a cordial relationship with corporate or government spokespeople means that queries are more likely to be taken seriously.
But working with P.R. reps can also present ethical dilemmas for reporters. What if, for instance, a spokesperson responds to a query with a statement that doesn’t answer the question? What if she will only speak on background and declines to be identified? What if a corporate PR department is pushing for a piece that the reporter doesn’t consider newsworthy?
The primary consideration in all of these scenarios should be the audience. Though you can’t lie to readers, listeners, and viewers, or waste their time with puff pieces written solely to court favor, readers arguably do have an interest in a reporter’s relationship with comms people on the beat, since they are often the gateway to the information you want to deliver.
With that tension in mind, here’s advice for handling some of the common ethical challenges that arise from working with corporate and government P.R. specialists.
1. When a spokesperson won’t go on the record to respond to a query
A foundational tenet of journalism maintains that the subjects of news stories – and, in particular, of critical stories – must be given a fair opportunity to respond. In the most straightforward application of the “no-surprises” rule to interactions with P.R. specialists, you pose a query to a corporate or government spokesperson, who responds promptly with relevant, on-the-record information.
The challenge with PR reps is that they often insist that they – and even their organizations – not be identified when they speak to the press and especially when they’re sharing sensitive information.
The audience, however, expects and deserves to know how the company or government agency responded to questions about their activities.
How can reporters best balance the obligation to respect the source’s attribution terms while still assuring readers that you gave the company an opportunity to comment and are relaying substantive information?
One approach is to insist on an on-the-record response, however anodyne, as a prerequisite to any substantive background conversation. Even if the spokesperson provides only a boilerplate response, such as “We don’t comment on rumors” or “We deny the allegations,” the audience will be reassured that you gave the subject a chance to tell its story. And then you have free rein to use background information they provide as well.
Another option is to state in the story that the company or agency spokesperson declined to comment on the record and then also report on what they said on background. This arguably serves the audience because it’s technically true. But such language could lead savvy news consumers to conclude that the spokesperson also supplied background information for the story, which, though true, may not be what the spokesperson intended when agreeing to speak on background.
To avert any such misunderstanding, specify your intentions before you agree to hear background information. If you plan to report that the company declined to comment on the record, disclose that to the PR person. If the spokesperson balks at that particular attribution, try to reach an agreement on alternative language, such as reporting that the company declined to provide a “statement.”
Some news organizations suggest that reporters avoid disclosing in the story whether any comment was sought when a source provides information but refuses to allow attribution. This approach avoids deceiving the audience with a dishonest “declined to comment,” although it may also leave readers (and editors) with questions about whether you sought comment at all.
A good way around all these imperfect alternatives is to ask the spokesperson to point you to relevant information in public records – perhaps court filings or financial reports – that you can cite in your story as representative of the company’s or agency’s stance.
From an ethical perspective, you should not, however, report that the company declined to comment or did not respond to your query if you have, in fact, received background information from a spokesperson. That would be lying.
2. When a spokesperson’s official response does not address the specifics of your query
PR reps sometimes treat responses to reporters’ queries as an opportunity to promote their own messages rather than to answer specific questions. Ordinarily, news organizations don’t view themselves as being obligated to act as a platform for attacks on their reporters or other assertions that are not related to the story. Therefore, they may choose not to include irrelevant or extraneous parts of the response.
In the event of a non-substantive response, the reporter needs to go back to the source in pursuit of a specific answer. If that’s not successful, it usually makes sense to state in the story that the source didn’t respond to specific questions – or, if they gave a generic answer, that the source didn’t respond to “further” questions.
3. When Comms pitches a story you don’t think is newsworthy
It’s easy to brush off unwelcome story pitches from random marketing people, but things can be a bit more complicated when the pitch comes from a spokesperson you work with regularly and consider a valuable source.
If you are sure the story does not serve your audience, you shouldn’t do it. Your audience’s time is valuable. Don’t waste it.
But maintaining the source relationship is also important. It makes sense to tell the spokesperson who pitched the story why you don’t think it’s newsworthy. Your source may have ideas for reframing or broadening the story so it’s worth telling. And even if the pitch still falls short, at least the spokesperson will have a better idea of your priorities, so future pitches may be more on point.