There may be situations in which an organization or its spokesperson would choose to deliberately avoid answering a question from a reporter. Quite often, the test for this is to determine whether answering the question would result in some form of significant moral loss for the spokesperson or the organization.

For example, suppose the plant manager at a petroleum refinery is engaged in an interview and a reporter asks, “Do you pollute?” This is a closed question, which technically requires either a yes or no. The obvious answer is yes. After all, it is a petroleum refinery. If it doesn’t pollute in some way, its products definitely do.

However, if the plant manager answers truthfully, there may be a significant moral loss. For the plant manager, that moral loss is personal; loss of credibility within the organization or the loss of a job. If the plant manager does not answer the question directly, we can’t fault that person for choosing to put his or her financial well-being ahead of the need to answer one question directly in an interview. It could potentially be a career-limiting move to answer such a question truthfully and say “yes.”

We have all seen situations in which the plant manager reverts to a predetermined message. He or she may respond by saying something like: “The emissions from this refinery have never exceeded strict environmental regulations.”

As public relations practitioners, this is how we have all been taught to answer such questions (and how we have all taught our clients to answer). However, there are other alternatives that may be better options to pursue.

One alternative is for the plant manager to challenge what is known in philosophical circles as prejudicial language by asking the reporter: “What do you mean by pollute?” The word “pollute” can be applied broadly. Technically, people who do not turn off the tap when brushing their teeth (or a reporter driving a vehicle to an interview) can be accused of polluting. Answering the question without having better understanding of how the word is used is dangerous.

Another alternative is to turn the initial question into a series of questions and answer them: “Do we have emissions? Yes. Do those emissions ever exceed strict federal guidelines? No. Do we have systems in place to do our best to ensure that they never exceed those guidelines? Yes. Would we tell you if we had? Absolutely.”

So the next time you’re counseling clients to answer questions — whether to internal audiences, external audiences or both — teach them to go beyond key messages and play an active role in the process. They have the right to understand what it is they’re answering. They have the right to probe, question and clarify.

And yes, if the reporter refuses to clarify or rephrase the question, the spokesperson does have the right, at that point certainly, to revert to message and keep repeating it if necessary. Therefore, as one of a number of defensive strategies, staying on message is acceptable.

However, from the perspective of creating an environment in which two-way symmetrical communication can thrive, reverting to message should be a last resort, not a first. As a defensive strategy, staying on message can be acceptable, but as an offensive strategy, most of the time it’s downright irritating.