Is There a Lesson for PR Professionals in Donald Trump’s Boycott of the Washington Post?

It’s a new day, which means Donald Trump has committed yet another head-shaking act.

In this case, it was his announcement that the Washington Post is now barred from his campaign, a move the New York Times characterized as “an almost unheard-of practice for a modern presidential campaign.”

The source of Mr. Trump’s displeasure with the Post was a headline that suggested that he had linked President Obama to the mass shooting in Orlando. In response, the Trump campaign said it would revoke the press credentials of the paper, effectively prohibiting Post journalists from traveling with the rest of the press corps covering Mr. Trump on the campaign trail.

This latest tempest in a tea cup got me to reflecting on the proper response when an individual or company feels it has been mistreated, misrepresented or misunderstood by a media outlet.

Every PR practitioner will face this situation at some (or many) point(s) in their career. Donald Trump’s boycott presents a good opportunity to review best practices when you or a client has received less-than-pleasing coverage by a media outlet.

1. Check your facts and re-read the piece. I can’t tell you how many times a hasty skim of an article has left me with a false impression as to its content or tone. Re-read (or re-listen) to the piece, and then double-check your facts or position. You may be forced to conclude that while you don’t like the story, it is not factually inaccurate. Which brings me to # 2.

2. [inlinetweet prefix=”null” tweeter=”null” suffix=”null”]Make sure you understand the difference between unfavorable and unfair (or wrong) reporting.[/inlinetweet] Every client will encounter coverage that they don’t like – but it’s your job to help them appreciate the difference between a piece they don’t care for and one that is inaccurate and / or potentially damaging to their reputation. I always remind clients to keep the article in perspective: they will read a media piece much more critically than will 95 percent of other readers.

3. Identify the source of the concern and the outcome you desire. Is there an inaccurate fact in the piece? Do you want the publication to run a correction – or do you just want to make the reporter aware of it for future reference? Journalists want their work to be accurate, and, while no one likes a retraction or correction, if it’s called for, most journalists and outlets will comply. What is trickier are situations that aren’t as black and white as an incorrectly reported employee headcount. Consider the nuanced situation where the overall tone of the article is overly negative, or the coverage feels one-sided. What should your response be? Be very clear on what you object to, and what you desire. Sometimes, it can be enough to have a meaningful conversation with a journalist, who will be better informed for her next article. Other times, you may need to push for more.

4. Contact the journalist to express your concern – and do it as soon after the piece has run as is feasible. Do not escalate this conversation to an editor until you’ve spoken with the reporter first. My style is generally courteous and professional – and I have almost always been rewarded with a concerned and thoughtful response from the reporter. But I have another friend in the business who works for a publicly traded and highly covered company and employs a bulldog approach to protecting his company’s reputation. He, too, enjoys respectful relationships with the journalists who cover his company.

5. On rare occasions, a conversation with an editor or producer may be in order. If the issue is serious enough and you cannot resolve it with the reporter, consider – carefully – whether a conversation with a higher-up would be advisable. This approach should be employed as a last resort. It is generally expected that the reporter will be invited to this meeting, as well. Again, I have found a reasoned and reasonable tone brings far better results than a belligerent, demanding one. A good goal for a meeting like this is to leave with each party having a better appreciation of the other’s point of view.

6. Consider whether this incident may point to a broader opportunity. In my experience, companies that fail to invest in ongoing media relations(hips) are at greater risk of inaccurate, incomplete or less educated reporting. This can present an opportunity to explain to a client how an ongoing program will keep media better informed about their organization and its operations, which can lead to fewer misunderstandings.

How aggressive do you become when coverage is negative? And what advice would you offer to Donald Trump the next time a media story offends him?