Getting stories from major companies or governments can turn into a game

It is one of the very first things you are taught as a journalist: make sure you contact X for a comment. You cannot say this about X without asking X for a response. This is X’s responsibility – what does X have to say?

This is not just about fairness and accuracy, it’s also the law. Journalists’ protection under UK law when writing about an individual or a company, relies on seeking, and publishing, their comment.

But that doesn’t mean the balance is right.

As everyone from corporations to governments to a nation’s armed forces now have sophisticated PR teams, it has become something of a game.

Major organisations, whether it be the Pentagon or Google, have got into a habit of rarely giving a straight answer to a straight question. They may try to come up with a statement (they may not), but they will certainly do all they can to avoid having someone speak on the record. Why risk it when a generic few paragraphs of text can safely put them in the best light?

Earlier this year, it was reported that Amazon had paid no federal tax in the US, and had even claimed a rebate. And so journalists dutifully contacted Amazon for their side of the story. This time we didn’t even get the handy-but-dull statement.

I was told on a background basis that the report contained several inaccuracies and that the company had “depreciated capital investments” which was one of the reasons it was claiming a credit. That was deemed enough to stem the tide; try to give the reporters just enough to head the story off! (If you’re told something “on background” by the way, it normally means they want you to let it inform your reporting without quoting the source directly... it’s often a cop-out, as in this case.)

But could Amazon provide an example of one of the “depreciated capital investments”?

“Thanks Andrew – nothing else on this one, although appreciate the inquiry.”

So maybe we reporters should show some solidarity. I propose this: when a journalist contacts a company, we don’t ask for a statement, but we simply go through our list of specific questions. And if they point blank refuse to answer those questions, let’s write that in the article. It might make for some intriguing, and lengthy, additions to our articles.

Maybe that’s a distant dream. But we will at least continue to make a stand against the rambling, generalised screed that so many official statements have become. The readers deserve better than that.

Yours,

Andrew Buncombe

Chief US correspondent