Why constructive dialogue with the media is usually the right first move
City A.M. editor-in-chief Christian May recently told PRWeek that he is receiving more legal threats than ever from lawyers acting as a “first line of defence”.
He explained: “If somebody nice rang me up and talked me through their position and asked me [to change copy], who knows what might have happened? But I can tell you that if the first I hear about it is because some extremely expensive legal letter pings into my inbox and makes a series of progressive demands, then I’m not going to change a thing off the back of that.”
Clients are often tempted to go for legal escalation at the outset in matters that are fundamentally about clarification, context or factual errors.
As May noted, established outlets have in-house lawyers. They are well placed to assess risk and to stand their ground where appropriate. An aggressive opening gambit in marginal cases does not necessarily create leverage, and often entrenches positions instead.
Worse, it can harden editorial resolve. No editor wants to be seen to capitulate to what appears to be an attempt to intimidate.
A legal threat changes the tone instantly, moving the interaction from dialogue to confrontation. It also reframes the journalist’s role from reporter to defendant.
In high-stakes situations, that shift can be counter-productive. It narrows the space for nuance and compromise, and can increase the likelihood that the dispute itself becomes part of the story.
By contrast, a constructive approach preserves options: a call to walk through concerns; a clearly reasoned note explaining inaccuracies; a willingness to provide evidence or clarification. These are often more effective first steps.
Editors pride themselves on getting stories right. Many are open to correcting genuine errors or adding context where it is properly substantiated. By contrast, they are very unreceptive to demands delivered with legal menace where the underlying complaint is weak.
A friendly approach from a PR firm they trust is therefore likely to achieve more than a legal letter in the first instance.
A formal letter should be deployed deliberately, and not as a knee-jerk reaction. Before sending one, it is crucial to ask:
Is there a clear and arguable legal cause of action?
Have we tested whether constructive engagement could resolve this?
What is the likely editorial response?
Could this approach escalate the issue?
May was careful to say he was not criticising all legal letters. There are cases where they are entirely appropriate. But his broader point stands: in matters that are essentially about communications, a communications-led approach is often more productive.
The most effective reputation management rarely begins with a threat. It begins with understanding the reporters, the editors, and the factual points which are likely to influence copy.