Don’t Litigate Conflicts in the Press
I say this all the time in issues and reputation work: don't litigate this in the press.
When something hits publicly, the instinct is to address every point and set the record straight. That instinct is completely understandable. But it's usually not the move.
Colleges and universities enter public disputes trying to defend their reputation. But the act of entering the dispute publicly is often what damages it most. You’re not correcting the record; you’re extending the story.
What actually happens when you engage
When organizations go back and forth in the media, a predictable sequence tends to unfold:
The story has a longer shelf life. Every response gives reporters a new peg. What could have been a one-day story becomes a week-long back-and-forth. Each new statement is its own news cycle.
The conflict becomes the story. Coverage shifts from the underlying issue to the dispute itself. Now the headline isn’t about what happened, it’s about the fight. That’s a much harder frame to escape.
You amplify what you’re trying to counter. Responding publicly repeats the criticism to a wider audience, and often an audience that never saw the original story. Your rebuttal introduces the attack to people who didn’t know about it.
Tone and timing slip out of your hands. Once you’re in a reactive loop, you’re operating on the media's schedule, not yours. Statements get made under pressure. Nuance gets stripped in editing. You stop sounding like a leader and start sounding defensive.
You lose sight of your actual audiences. This is the real cost. You stop communicating with the people who matter — students, faculty, staff, alumni, your neighbors and donors — and start performing for a media audience that isn’t going to give you credit no matter what you say.
The smarter approach
None of this means going silent. It means being disciplined about where and how you communicate.
Say what needs to be said — once — in a form you control. Then move the conversation to the right places: direct stakeholder outreach, briefings with key partners and channels where context survives and nuance is actually possible. These conversations don’t generate headlines, and that's the point.
The discipline required here is harder than it sounds. It means sitting with discomfort while a story runs its course. It means pushing back on executives who want to “go on offense.” It means convincing leadership that not responding is itself a strategic choice, and often the stronger one.
The goal isn’t to win in the press. The goal is to protect trust and credibility. Those things don’t come from a public back-and-forth. They come from consistent, credible communication with the people who actually matter to your organization.
Every time you feel the pull to fire back publicly, ask yourself: who am I actually trying to reach right now, and is this the right channel to reach them? Most of the time, the answer will point you somewhere other than the press.
