The PR Playbook

Sharyl Attkisson: Ten Tactics to Influence Negative News

(CBS)  This column was written by CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

---

As someone who's done a fair amount of investigative reporting, I've been encountering strikingly similar tactics employed by many press agents for government agencies (under both Democrats and Republicans), corporations, plaintiffs' and defendants' lawyers, non-profits and other entities when they perceive a negative story is coming their way.

Recently, when comparing notes with fellow investigative reporters, I learned I'm not the only one noticing these common strategies. In short, they seem to be operating from the same playbook. If there were such a playbook, it might read something like this.

2005 Top Ten Tactics to Influence Negative News: The PR Playbook

1. "It's Old News"
News reporters hate to hear that their story is "old news." It makes them want to drop the subject like a hot potato. So when a news reporter calls you about a potentially negative story — whatever it is — just say "it's old news" even if it's not.

Useful phrases:
"There's nothing new here..."
"We just keep scratchin' our heads tryin' to figure out what's new here..."
"This has all been widely reported before..."

2. The Mine and Pump Strategy
Without giving up one scintilla of information, relentlessly "mine and pump" the news reporter for what he knows, so that you have tools to attempt to pre-empt a story and/or get a head start on damage control. Tell the reporter you can't possibly agree to an interview without knowing things like: Who else will appear in the story? What are the names of all the sources? What exactly did the sources say? What pictures will be used in the story? Who made the story assignment? Demand the news reporter put any questions in writing. It doesn't matter that you have no intention of providing answers or an interview. Stringing along the news reporter may ensure you receive the benefit of his information without giving up any information in return.

3. The Interview Sidestep and Delay
There are a hundred ways to delay a story. If the reporter requests an interview by Wednesday, tell him he can't have it until Friday. When Friday comes, tell him he'll have to wait until Monday. On Monday, tell the reporter the key players are "out of town," "on vacation," "sick," "lost their voices", "on a plane to Europe" or are otherwise unreachable. Remember, any delay works to your advantage: it buys you time to spin your side of the story and to raise objections with the news organization's executives. It also increases the chance that bigger news will happen and "your" story will get dumped.

4. Science Sleight-of-Hand
These tactics are specially designed for stories that involve studies and science, but a caution: they're only effective with reporters who don't understand the intricacies of what they're reporting.

a. "That's purely anecdotal." If there's no firm study, tell the reporter that his evidence is "purely anecdotal." Hopefully, he will not understand that anecdotal evidence is often some of the most powerful evidence around (it's often the reason drugs are taken off the market or how defects in products are identified). This tactic can be more powerful when used in conjunction with tactic "b" below.

b. "That's not real science." Of course there's no standard definition for "real science" but when you toss out the idea that any sort of evidence is "not real science," it might resonate with an unknowing reporter. Since "real science" is in the eye of the beholder, you can claim most anything is "not real science" whether it's anecdotal, or a study published in a peer-reviewed journal.

c. "It's just one study." When a reporter has a compelling study for evidence, use this strategy. Tell him "it's just one study." Although a single study can be powerful evidence, invocation of this phrase can effectively undermine that study in the eyes of the uninformed. If it turns out there's more than one study, move onto tactic "d" below.

d. "It's not the 'definitive' study." What makes a study "definitive" is subjective, but you can sometimes get some traction by trying this argument.

e. "Twist the meaning of 'no evidence of a risk' into 'proof of no risk'." If a reporter has a documented risk of some sort, counter it with a study that finds "no evidence of a risk." Twist the meaning of that study into "proof there's no risk" (which is actually definitive and entirely different). A news reporter who doesn't know better might be persuaded by your spin. Be insistent and convincing.