In the digital era, media relations details can end up front and center, damaging reputation

According to the old saying about being cautions with the media, you should never pick a fight with somebody who buys ink by the barrel.

Two recent episodes illustrate why it’s even more important to be buttoned up when it comes to engaging with reporters in the digital era, when unlimited space is for media outlets to share information that in the past may never have seen publication – including details on how companies and individuals engage with reporters, beyond just the news of what they say.

First, the imbroglio involving star Major Leaguer Shohei Ohtani, whose interpreter was fired over potential involvement in illegal sports gambling.  Initially, the interpreter was interviewed by ESPN, and claimed that Ohtani had voluntarily covered his gambling debts.  The interview was arranged by Ohtani’s communications advisors. 

Following the interview, Ohtani’s lawyers issued a statement saying the interpreter’s claims were note true, and Ohtani had no knowledge of the transfer of funds (from Ohtani’s bank account) to the bookie.   

While subsequent statements by Ohtani seem to have clarified the matter, the initial back and forth caused many to question if Ohtani himself had been making the wagers.

In a prior era, Ohtani’s advisors could have realized that the interpreter’s story was inconsistent with Ohtani’s and arranged a cleanup before the story appeared in print, likely the following morning.  But not today.  The whole back and forth was included in the initial article.

The bottom line is that in the age of digital media, Ohtani and his advisors needed the story to be right the first time.  They should have exercised a high degree of skepticism and caution with the interpreter, regardless of how trusted he may have been.  With unlimited column inches available online, the consequences are potentially severe:  After initially demurring, Major League Baseball has launched an investigation, further prolonging the reputational impact.

Another recent example came from Cerberus, the investment firm.  As happens occasionally, Cerberus’ communications team took issue with how Axios described actions that one of its portfolio companies took, and claimed that the firm did not have control of the portfolio company’s Board of Directors.  Axios published elements of the back and forth and information countering Cerberus’ claims, concluding that Cerberus’ communications team did not provide evidence of its claim and taking a couple shots at the firm in the process.

It’s not uncommon for executives (or communications leaders) to push reporters to update a story with clearer or additional facts. 

But there has to be to it more than simply disliking the coverage, and there has to be clear evidence that a correction is warranted.  Otherwise a backfire is inevitable, even if that backfire is limited to diminished credibility with the reporter.

Similar to the Ohtani situation, in previous eras Cerberus’ back and forth with the reporter may never have seen the light of day.  Now, the world knows what happened.