In Praise of “Rather’s Rules”
26th November 2006 by Eric Bergman, ABC, APR
If you’ve read posts on this commons (including the very first one by IABC vice-president of publishing, Natasha Spring), chances are you know that I’m not a big fan of staying on message. Personally, I believe staying on message can be used as one of a number of defensive strategies, but it has become an overused and outdated paradigm in an information-driven world.
I make the assumption that most media relations practitioners have, as one of their ideal end states, a desire to build some form of relationship with reporters. Without communication, you cannot build a relationship with anyone. And, if you don’t answer someone’s questions in clear, concise terms — whether the person asking is a spouse, partner, significant other, parent, child, neighbor, boss, co-worker, colleague or reporter — chances are you are transmitting, not communicating.
But, having said all that, there are specific situations in which a spokesperson may reasonably choose not to answer a question. To understand when this is acceptable, we turn to what are known as “Rather’s Rules.” These guidelines for answering questions have been attributed to television reporter Dan Rather. I first encountered them during a discussion on the old Marketing & PR Forum on CompuServe in the mid-1990s.
Basically, Rather’s Rules state that there are three acceptable answers to every question that someone can be asked. They are:
-
• “Yes, I have the answer, and here it is.
• No, I don’t have the answer, but I’ll get it for you.
• Yes, I do have the answer, but I cannot discuss it at this time.”
It’s easy to see that waffling, sidestepping, obfuscating and evading are not anywhere to be found on this list. If your organization is interested in pursuing excellence in its communication activities — and is striving to create two-way symmetrical communication wherever and whenever possible — you should have no problem accepting the parameters outlined by Rather’s Rules.
There are a number of specific situations in which a spokesperson would deliberately choose the third option, to not answer questions, even though he or she knows the answer. These include situations in which the question directly relates to:
A case currently before the courts.
Union negotiations that are under way, in which a news blackout has been imposed.
An emergency, in which next-of-kin have not yet been notified.
Securities legislation, which would be breached if the question was answered.
Confidentiality for employees, customers, members or others.
Another aspect of privacy of information legislation.
Sensitive competitive information.
National security.
It’s clear from this list that choosing to not communicate by not answering someone’s questions is relatively straightforward. If a spokesperson at an accident or disaster is asked about who was injured or killed, it’s acceptable for that person to say “I cannot answer any questions about casualties until all next-of-kin have been notified.”
The line is not so clear when it comes to situations in which a spokesperson would choose to deliberately avoid questions. That will be the topic of my next post. But, in the meantime, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
There is great misunderstanding about the limits of comment in the “before the courts” excuse / scenario.
It’s hard to find a lawyer happy to let a PR person say anything when there’s a court cse involved, but mostly / at least often, that’s just a fee-building exercise by the lawyer.
If cops and US district attorneys and politicians can have news conferences, PR people and their clients can talk to reporters, too.
Whether or not it is wise is a strategy decision, in addition to a legal decision.
The government of Ontario, Canada, has received a report on this and related topics, and for anyone with lots of spare time, or clients involved in law suits, it makes interesting reading.
I began my PR career by, among other things, standing in a courthouse lobby handing out news releases and backgrounders to reporters covering trials involving my cleint, a litigation and criminal lawyer.
For decades, I’ve commented myself, or helped clients comment, on a wide variety of business-related court cases, or regulatory tribunals and hearings that people often thoght of as having the same “before the courts” concepts in play.
And a couple of months ago we wrapped up our work with a lawyer, helping him talk to reportrs, or get information to reporters without speaking directly (e-mails, notes, etc., always with the reporter understanding the info came from a particular team of lawyers — no sneaky stuff).
The stock exchange and security exchange rules are a real mess; on the one hand execs can’t say anything unless they can figure out how to say it to everyone at the same time, but they also have to have full disclosure.
IABC could take a leading role in trying to get the Sarbanes Oxley ACt (it affects not just the USA) changed so it at least makes some sense as far as the FD - full disclosure - rules go.
BAK
December 7th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Rather’s Rules are quite true, but there is something to say about injecting new information into a public discourse. If, for example, someone cannot answer a question for any one of the reasons given above. Having new information, or supplying additional background information, or reframing information to open a new thread of discussion and understanding about a topic is important too.
Isn’t this a good tactic as well?
December 8th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Brian,
I agree with your perspective. If your opponent in court is courting the media, the organization would be wise to prepare a suitable defense in the court of public opinion.
December 8th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Rodger,
Yes, you can bait the hook with additional information.
Unfortunately, too many spokespeople scare the fish by talking too much.