Thursday morning, 8:00 AM. Your name is on the front page of a major newspaper. By 9:00 AM, your phone is ringing:

"Hello, we're looking for a comment from you before we finalize our radio report."

Are you being implicated in a sensitive matter ? Is the request coming from a reputable media outlet or a controversial one?

And above all: what do you do ? Do you respond? Do you dodge the question? Do you pass it on to your press officer or a spokesperson? Or do you... stay silent?

When poorly managed information can spread across social media in minutes, responding to a journalist — or choosing not to — is never neutral. It is a strategic move, one that impacts your organization, your policy, and your values...

If poorly managed, a speaking out can create damage, harm your image with the general public or your professional audience, or lead to lasting scrutiny in the public eye.

Conversely, a clear, prepared, aligned message that reflects your cause and values can strengthen your company's credibility and provide high-quality information that is useful to listeners, readers, and democratic debate.

Linker helps you make the right choices regarding the press, and understand what truly matters.

We provide you with the keys to:

• Understand the rights, duties, and requirements related to journalistic information
• Decide when to speak, how, and who it is appropriate to respond to
• Build a long-term relationship of trust, even when the news cycle is tense

• Prepare yourself as effectively as possible for this type of media relationship

‍

Understand the journalist's role and the media landscape

Before interacting with a journalist, it is essential to understand who they are and what they are bound by, and the ethical rules that govern their work. This first section helps establish a clear framework, moving past myths or clichés about "media power."

‍

Who is the journalist today?

A journalist is an information professional, legally recognized as such when they derive the majority of their income from this activity and work in accordance with a mission of public interest. They may work under various roles: field reporter, editorialist, columnist, presenter, or even freelancer (an independent journalist paid by the article).

Despite this diversity of profiles, journalists operate within a common framework: that of editorial independence, which distinguishes them from PR professionals or influencers. They are not there to promote a brand or defend private interests, but to inform.

‍

‍

What are the ethical obligations of a journalist?

Journalists cannot simply do "whatever they want." Their practice is based on ethical principles that are widely shared at both national and international levels:

• Fact-checking
• Pursuit of the truth
• Independence from authorities and private interests
• Respect for privacy
• Right of reply and fairness of viewpoints

In France, the The charter of the National Union of Journalists (SNJ) and the 1971 Munich Declaration serve as ethical benchmarks.

‍

‍

What is a journalist's responsibility to the public?

A journalist does not work for the company they are interviewing, but for the public. They have a significant social responsibility: to guarantee the right to free, honest, and pluralistic information.

This role does not grant them absolute rights: they cannot defame, manipulate, or intentionally omit key facts. They must strike a balance between freedom of expression, the public interest, and

‍Book a meeting with the team

‍

Should you respond to journalists? The stakes of speaking out

Responding to a journalist is a bit like speaking at a dinner party where everyone is listening: you need to know how to why and how to do it.

‍

Why respond to a journalist?

Responding is an opportunity to make your voice heard rather than letting someone else tell your story for you. It allows you to:

• Gain visibility without paying for ads
• Explain things clearly, without misunderstandings
• Share your ideas and influence public opinion
• Keep control of the narrative before rumors take over

‍

So, can you say no to a journalist?

Of course, you don't have to answer everyone! Saying no can be the best option in certain cases:

• When the timing is really bad (you aren't ready or the situation is too sensitive)
• If the topic is too sensitive or complicated to handle at the moment
• If the request does not align with your communication strategy
• Or if the media outlet does not reflect your values (tabloid press, for example)

‍

So, is silence a good idea or a bad one?

Sometimes, not responding seems easier. But be careful, silence can quickly become a bad signal :

• It can be perceived as evasiveness or an admission
• Giving the impression that you are ignoring the problem or that you don't care
• Leaving the field open to rumors and speculation

In short, silence can backfire… unless it is truly well-calculated.

‍

Who should speak? And how do you choose the right person?

In a company, not everyone is necessarily meant to speak to the media.

Depending on the situation, it may be the CEO who needs to speak, or at other times a well-trained spokesperson or a subject matter expert who brings their own credibility.

‍

Two specific cases: crisis communication and the right of reply

Let’s look at two specific cases of communication with journalists:

• Crisis communication (with a response version and a silence version)
• The right of reply

‍

Crisis communication where speaking out was necessary: industrial company and serious accident

A blast rings out in a metal machining workshop. The explosion leaves 2 people with minor injuries and is brought under control by firefighters within minutes, but the scene is dramatic.

Very quickly, local residents post on social media: “The factory exploded!” A photo of a plume of smoke goes viral.

Soon, the first journalist calls.

The company hesitates. Should they wait for the internal technical investigation to conclude? The HR director suggests saying nothing for now. The CEO, however, makes a different decision.

An hour later, he holds a brief, impromptu press conference in the factory parking lot, in front of three local journalists. He explains:

“The incident is under control, there is no pollution, and two colleagues have sustained minor injuries and are being well cared for. An internal investigation begins this evening. Our priority is safety and transparency. We will provide updates as soon as possible.”

The next day, the headlines read: “Workshop incident, two minor injuries”. On social media, accusatory posts are defused. On Monday, employees return to work, feeling confident.

Analysis:

• What made the difference : not letting the media space be taken over by rumors.
• Why it was necessary to speak out : the dramatic images and spontaneous social media posts made the situation highly volatile. Silence would have only fueled suspicion.
• Key success factors :
  • Speed
  • Simple message, focused on confirmed facts
  • Appropriate channel (physical presence, local journalists)
  • Humility in communication

‍

Crisis case where silence was preferable: tech company and filed complaint

A cybersecurity scale-up, in the middle of a fundraising round, discovers that a former employee has filed a complaint for “moral harassment” against one of its managers.

A specialized media outlet is preparing an article. The journalist calls the communications department, mentions "serious allegations," and threatens to publish "within the week."

Panic at the executive level. Some argue for a quick response: "We must say we are exemplary, communicate as much as possible, and show that we are taking action!"

The CEO, advised by an external firm, chooses silence. No press release. No interview. No denial either.

However, the firm prepares an internal message for employees: acknowledging the complaint, launching an investigation, placing the manager in question on temporary leave, and conducting an ongoing HR audit.

The article is published, factual and neutral, as there were no employees to spread rumors. No major outlets pick up the story.

In parallel, the company strengthens its internal HR policy, then communicates discreetly about it a month later, once the findings are known.

Analysis:

• What made the difference : not "shouting louder than the accusation."
• Why silence was preferable : ongoing legal matter, lack of evidence suitable for media coverage, and the risk of amplifying a story that had little exposure.
• Key success factors :
  • Public silence but real internal action
  • Anticipating a response plan should pressure increase
  • No aggression toward journalists
  • Respecting the judicial process

‍

So, should you speak up or stay silent during a crisis?

The right decision is never automatic; it depends on the context, the level of exposure, the maturity of the facts, and above all, the media power dynamic at play.

Unprepared speech can do more harm than a thoughtful, temporary silence.

‍Book a meeting with the team

‍

Exercising the right of reply

The CEO of a 300-employee engineering group opens his phone, just like every other morning.
But that day, the notification at the top of his screen is unlike the others.

“Conflict of interest in a tech company: a rigged tender? According to a former employee, the CEO personally steered a public contract to benefit a company linked to his former professional network.”

The article is published on a reputable business news site. He reads it once. Then a second time.
His name is mentioned. In full. As is his company’s.

The CEO is stunned. He has never been involved in this contract. The company mentioned is neither a client, nor known to him. He realizes: an anonymous tip, without verification, can be an act of revenge or an attempt to destabilize. And already, on LinkedIn, shares are appearing.

He wants to respond. Right away. He thinks about posting a video. But he pulls himself together. What if he contacted his communications department first?

• The right of reply exists : it is governed by law.
• You must act quickly, but without emotion.
• The media outlet is legally required to publish it, if requested correctly.

A letter is sent by registered mail:

“Dear Editor-in-Chief,
Your article published on [date] contains a false accusation against me. I have never had any professional or personal connection with the company mentioned. There is no objective evidence to justify the wording used, which may damage my company's image and interests.

Pursuant to Article 13 of the Law of July 29, 1881, I am enclosing a right of reply that I request you to publish in accordance with the conditions provided by law.

Sincerely,

After contacting the editorial team, a right of reply is established within the week. Sober. Clear. Objective.

No revenge. No threats. Just the truth restored.

• The media outlet publishes a discreet correction.
• The original article is no longer in circulation.
• The CEO's professional network praises their rigor.
• Internally, employees are reassured.

The right of reply is a powerful, fast, and free tool to correct a public grievance.

It is a precise legal weapon for protecting your reputation without sparking controversy.

However, you must respect deadlines and avoid using it as a soapbox for personal opinions. The right of reply is not a place for venting.

Sometimes, the best communication is the law.

‍

Preparation before any interview: a lever for control

When it comes time for an interview, you need to be prepared. An interview is not an informal conversation. It is a strategic speaking opportunity that impacts the company's reputation (and often that of the person speaking).

Preparing for an interviewmeans reducing the unexpected and maximizing impact.

Why is preparation essential?

Even the best communicators don't just wing it in front of a camera or microphone. One wrong word, a vague statement, or a defensive posture… and the clip can go viral (for all the wrong reasons).
Preparation allows you to:

• Minimize the risk of gaffes
• Structure a clear and memorable message
• Anticipate sensitive or trick questions
• Boost the spokesperson's confidence

‍

Media training: an essential tool for executives

Media trainingis the equivalent of a crash test for your public speaking. It provides:

• realistic simulations (cameras, microphones, professional journalists)
• Analyzing verbal and non-verbal communication
• Working on conciseness, impact, and presence
• Key habits to adopt when facing unexpected questions

‍Book a meeting with the team

‍

Bonus: building a constructive relationship with journalists

It is not enough to just pick up the phone during a crisis: an effective relationship with the media is built well in advance, over time. Like any relationship based on trust, it relies on consistency, transparency… and a touch of tact.

A constructive relationship with journalists is like any good professional collaboration:

• Transparent : you don't hide the essentials (even if you don't say everything)
• Consistent : you communicate outside of crises, not just when there is a problem to manage
• Respectful : we understand the other person's constraints (e.g., tight deadlines, the need for catchy headlines)
• Win-win : the company gets visibility, and the journalist gets clear, reliable, and contextualized information

‍

Checklist – 10 best practices for media relations

• Be reachable (even after 6 p.m… sometimes)
• Respond quickly (without rushing)
• Prepare your key messages
• Respect embargoes
• Never lie
• Offer useful angles or data
• Personalize your outreach
• Don't pester journalists to review articles
• Be available outside of breaking news
• Say thank you after a feature (yes, really!)