The Essence of Media Relations: Not Controlling Coverage, but Building Trust
"This reporter — can we 'handle' them?"
In corporate communications, I hear this a lot. What they mean is: can we find a way to make the reporter write less negative and more positive, ideally have the whole piece go our way.
Every time I hear the word "handle," I sigh inside. Because behind it sits the deepest misconception about media relations — many people think media relations means "controlling coverage." But its essence is exactly the opposite: it's building trust.
I'm sure of this because I come from journalism myself. I know exactly what matters most when you're sitting in the reporter's seat.
A reporter's most trusted source is never the one who talks the sweetest or lays out the fanciest spread. It's the one who is reliable — the information you give is accurate, you won't feed me false material for your own gain, you pick up the phone when I'm against a deadline and most need to verify, and what you tell me won't make me look foolish afterward. A reporter's trust is built up like that, one instance at a time. And once you become that "reliable source," your weight in their mind is something no press release can match.
Conversely, the companies forever trying to "control" coverage usually don't end up well. Because reporters are among the most sensitive people there are — the moment you try to control one, they smell it instantly. The harder you push to suppress or to stuff in good words, the more they sense something's off, and the more they want to dig. Control tends to backfire — you push a reporter who could have been neutral, even friendly, into the opposing camp with your own hands.
So how should you actually cultivate media relations? My answer is the same logic as cultivating government relations: when you have nothing to ask of them, that's when you build yourself into a reliable source.
Deal with reporters in ordinary times, not only when you have a product to launch or a negative to suppress. Let them know, in ordinary times, that you're someone who speaks plainly, gives accurate material, and does what they promise.
This "reliability" has no shortcut — it can only be built over time. You do what you promised a reporter, your information is accurate every time, you're reachable when they're against a deadline — instance by instance, they slowly file you under "this person is dependable." So that when something really goes wrong one day, and you call, they're at least willing to hear you out first — not because of what you're saying this time, but because of your reliability over the long run.
So, back to that "can we handle this reporter" question. My answer is usually: don't think about handling the reporter; think about how to make this reporter willing to believe you at the critical moment.
You can't control the coverage. But you can make yourself into someone a reporter is willing to treat fairly. And that is worth far more than any single act of "handling."