/dealing-with-reporters

name: dealing-with-reporters
description: Drafts and reviews answers to reporter questions, on-the-record statements, crisis-comms responses, and press-inquiry replies. Implements Andrew Ross Sorkin's 11 rules (taught with Kramon at Stanford GSB) plus AP attribution definitions for off-the-record / background / deep background conversations. Use when a journalist is calling, when a story is about to break, when a competitor has just been hacked and you want to get ahead of inquiry, or when a class assignment asks you to play CEO under fire. Triggers on "reporter," "journalist," "press inquiry," "PR statement," "no comment," "on background," "off the record," "crisis comms," "media interview," "quote me."

Dealing with reporters

Source: Andrew Ross Sorkin (NYT *DealBook* / *Squawk Box*) and Glenn Kramon's *Winning Writing* class lecture on press relations. AP attribution definitions baked in.

Why this skill exists

Most executives wing it with reporters and then spend the next decade in litigation. The 11 rules below come from Sorkin, who has interviewed CEOs through every flavor of crisis since 2007, plus Kramon's three decades editing the *New York Times* business section. The rules are battle-tested. The tradeoffs are real.

Sorkin's 11 rules

1. Never say "no comment"

There's always something better, even if you can't say much. *"I'd love to be able to walk you through this, but the investigation is still active and law enforcement has asked us not to discuss specifics yet"* beats "no comment" every time. The first sentence is a quote the reporter can use without making you look evasive. The second is the actual reason.

2. Don't avoid calls

Bad feelings compound. You lose the chance to understand what the reporter is actually after, and you lose the chance to shape your side of the story. Even if you're not ready to comment, take the call and say so.

3. Know the journalist

Read their last six pieces before talking to them. Talk to peers they've quoted. Some are more trustworthy than others. You won't always have a choice — but knowing who you're dealing with changes what you say and how.

4. Build relationships before you need them

The reporter who knows your business in depth will write a more nuanced story when something goes wrong. That doesn't mean they'll be soft. It means they'll be accurate. *Build the relationship in good times.*

5. Address the question, tell the truth, hedge when you must

Say as much as you can confidently say. If you don't know, say so. Don't overpromise: *"It won't happen again"* and *"We assure you our system is safe"* are statements that age badly. *"Based on what we know today"* is the right frame.

6. Focus on the positive, the constructive

What you're doing to improve the situation. Not what went wrong, not who's at fault, not what you're sorry for. *"I'm not at liberty to disclose"* sounds defensive and stonewalling. *"Here's what we're doing right now"* sounds proactive.

7. Talk in sound bites that make for good quotes

Reporters need 15-second clips. Give them three sentences that stand alone, don't require context, and tell your story. If you don't write the quote, they will — and theirs will be worse.

8. Avoid self-incriminating language

*"We should have been more careful."* *"We did not take action early enough."* *"It was our fault."* All sound like character; all read as admissions in court. If you're going to be sued, the plaintiff's lawyer will quote your interview verbatim in the complaint.

**This rule has a counter-school.** See *The Tylenol / Kramon school* below.

9. Avoid "as I said" and "as I mentioned"

Sounds impatient and defensive, even when you're being patient. Just answer the question again. If they're asking twice, your first answer wasn't clear enough.

10. Be specific, not vague

*"Extremely costly"* unnerves investors more than *"at least $100 million."* A real number is a ceiling. Vague language is the reader's imagination, which is always worse than the truth.

11. Never sound angry or defensive

Even when you feel it. Especially when you feel it. The recording will outlast the moment. Take the breath, answer cleanly.

The Tylenol / Kramon school (counter to rule 8)

Sorkin's rule 8 — *avoid self-incriminating language* — optimizes for the plaintiff's lawyer. The opposite school optimizes for the customer reading the front page. The case for owning it:

• **Johnson & Johnson, 1982.** Tylenol cyanide deaths. CEO James Burke pulled every bottle from every shelf within a week. He spoke directly, owned the lapse, and rebuilt trust in 18 months. The company would not have survived a hedge-and-deny strategy.
• **Kramon's class-wide rule.** *"Say what you like AND what you would like — never only what you don't like."* Constructiveness is mandatory. Honesty without solutions is a complaint; honesty with solutions is leadership.
• **The empirical signal.** Customers forget the breach. They remember how they were treated when it broke.

The case for hedging (Sorkin's rule 8):

• **Equifax, 2017.** Data breach, 147M customers. Executives sold stock before disclosure. CEO resigned. Litigation lasted years. Direct admissions were quoted in nearly every complaint.
• **The empirical signal.** Class-action lawyers read interviews and earnings calls. One careless phrase can cost $50M in settlement leverage.

How to decide which school applies

Run this triage:

| Situation | Which school | |---|---| | Low expected litigation exposure (small private company, no class-action precedent, customers not financially harmed) | **Tylenol/Kramon.** Own it. | | High exposure (public co., consumer data breach, financial harm provable, plaintiffs' firms circling) | **Sorkin.** Hedge without lying. | | Mixed and you don't know yet | **Hybrid.** Acknowledge the harm to customers without admitting fault for the cause: *"We are sorry our customers are dealing with this. The investigatio