Journalists – ten rules for working with the Press.
Can't live with them. Can't deport them to South Sudan. Ten rules for working with the Press.
Some limited humour follows. God knows they deserve it - you know who you are. In my next paid post, I’ll apply the rules in five scenarios.
Ten rules for working with journalists
Communicating effectively with the press is a vital skill for anyone seeking to advance ideas, represent a community or defend a record. Handled well, media engagement can steer events, shape narratives and protect reputations. Mishandled, it can open the door to needless controversy, ruined reputations and endless work.
On my election in 2010, I had no idea about journalists: they were all terrifying, local and national. By the time the EU referendum result was in, I had been well exposed to print and TV journalism. My exposure then dramatically accelerated as the Brexit controversy grew, leaving me well equipped to get through my work on Covid and Net Zero. Today, I take snippy diary coverage as merely a helpful advert: thanks The Times!
The first rule of briefing journalists: don’t brief journalists
My parliamentary staff induction contained a simple rule:
Do not brief journalists or the media without permission.
Parliamentary staff tend to arrive from university and tend to arrive somewhat idealistic. It was necessary to explain what a fishing expedition may look like. “Steve said I should ask you for the list of rebel MPs,” on the phone for example.
I know readers will find this hard to believe, but journalists will sometimes use subtlety and subterfuge to stand up a story. There was one safe principle: do not give out information and never brief a journalist: refer them to me.
Even if you have done nothing wrong, or your side of the controversy is obviously on the moral high ground, speaking to journalists can too easily go terribly badly wrong. It is better to avoid them if you can.
Later, I would give staff the briefing from which this article is derived and let them have a go with some of the more trustworthy journalists. It might not have been fine.
Rule 2: journalists are there to help someone and it is not you
Journalists will often seem extraordinarily open and friendly. They are sleuths after information and they know how to handle people to get it. They can seem very helpful.
And it is true that journalists are there to help someone. Their job is to increase readership or viewers, sell newspapers or TV advertising and generally keep the boss happy like everyone else. Their boss may or may not have, or be allowed to have, an agenda. The journalist is there to be helpful to those people: readers and the boss.
Not you.
Rule 3: journalists are only human too
Journalists are of course only human. They are just trying to do their job against the usual range of problems: spouse, kids, mortgage, health, divorce, bereavement, a crappy commute and so on like anyone else. Journalists deserve courtesy and respect1.
But more than that, they too will have their pride and their wish to be appreciated, their opinions and their biases. They will be under immense pressure to meet deadlines and churn out timely and interesting social media. And they won’t change their minds about anything that really matters to them - just like everyone else.
Some journalists will be hard-bitten hacks who have seen it all before and will let you know, perhaps unintentionally. Some won’t quite be able to believe they are actually here in Portcullis House interviewing MPs for The T—! (“IT’S JUST SO EXCITING!!!”) Meeting them can be terrifying or terribly sweet. It depends.
They will also want to get on, with more money, status and power for themselves2. That means promotion and promotion comes from “scoops”: exclusive access to the next big story3. Incentives count.
Journalists are only human too: try to win friends and influence people through your courtesy and appreciation of their position and work. While also appreciating their own incentives, needs and desires.
They will get you if they can. They must: it is in their nature.
Rule 4: understand your own motivations for briefing journalists
Given the extreme risks of working with journalists, why would you do it?
In national politics, you must work with the Press for the same reason that it is extremely dangerous: they send information far and wide, determining the course of public debate. With skill and experience, briefing members of the press sequentially is like placing rocks down through a dry valley before you open the sluice gate at the top: the narrative flows where you wish, sometimes for days.
It can be very effective.
Generally, you will be either on the front foot with offensive communications or on the back foot in defence.
I am not proposing you tell the Press to go forth and multiply, though I am sure you will wish to. I mean by offensive communications that you should advance your cause by proactively putting forward your views and proposals and the reasons for them in a way which makes it easy for the journalist to give you coverage. You might also advance your cause through a critique of your opponents’ policy and ideas or, indeed and alas, their character and motivations.
This is an important point: always try to play the ball not the man or woman. We know why politicians do it: overwhelmingly for the same noble reasons as you. Better to be civil, stay off the personal stuff and avoid arousing the animosity which will bite you later. It is rarely useful anyway, although I could give you necessary counterexamples.
Why do MPs do it?
The life of an MP is an all-consuming battle to engage the disengaged, mollify the furious and demanding, and serve effectively the vulnerable. Without thanks but with fierce condemnation and the constant allegation that you don’t
You may wish to shore up your core vote or win swing votes from one or more other parties, which may necessarily arouse tensions and difficulties: Con-Lib Dem and Con-Reform switchers are probably not susceptible to the same arguments for example.
Whether you are a government minister or rebel commander, you will wish to steer events, to set the narrative before others do and to get the narrative of national and local discussions back on track4.
One the defensive side, you will wish to defend your votes and explain your record as it is being contested. You will defend your party, presenting a united front under attack, whether in government or opposition.
Sometimes you will be defamed. Swift, factual rebuttals can cut damaging speculation off at the knees. Go all out when you are lied about: make clear that an allegation is a flat out lie and they will have defamed you if they publish it. Do not lie yourself.
In seeking to communicate for all these purposes, of course it is important to know whether the outlet you are speaking with is at all likely to respond helpfully to what you are saying5.
Rule 5: understand the motivations of journalists
With 24-hour TV news, online newspapers, constantly rolling social media, podcasts and all the rest of it, there is an immense demand for stories. It is the duty and joy of journalists to fill the void, irrespective of whether there is anything interesting happening. They need news.
You receive very little training as a candidate and MP but in the one media training session I had many years ago, a wise man told us there are fundamentally five categories of news story:
Scandal – exposés, wrongdoing, or sensational developments.
Danger to the community – anything that threatens public safety or welfare.
Novelty – the promise of fresh content to arouse public interest and entertain.
Human interest – personal stories and emotional angles that resonate widely.
The sport – literally the sport. Apparently some people think sport is what really matters.
Occasionally, a politician will engage in sport in pursuit of coverage – notably the LibDem leader in the 2024 campaign – but these cases are really more of a novelty. Everyone likes a laugh at the expense of those in power, which is why my greatest hit was being wrestled to the ground by a cage fighter.
Human interest can often be popular – see Wycombe’s cutest pet – but unless it is connected to a terrible tragedy like a crime or terminal illness, it is not likely to advance a cause. For that reason, advancing causes through human interest is likely to be a necessity not a choice and one approached soberly given the gravity of what you may be dealing with.
Much more usual in politics is scandal or danger to the community. Politicians are always alleging one thing or another or seeking to juxtapose the burning platform with the sunlit uplands. That is the fertile territory on which the politician usually operates.
And on that territory, the bigger the better as far as the journalist is concerned, not least because one big, juicy scandal can keep everyone going for days, weeks or months with productive material of great public interest without requiring earnest and time-consuming thought over dreary and complicated detail about matters of great but not immediate importance.
Rule 6: understand what you want to achieve
Once you understand your own motivations and the journalists’, get specific.
What exactly is the story you want?
How does it contribute to your ends?
How might it be rebutted, supplemented or otherwise diverted from your purposes and how will you avoid that?
Is it actually news?
The last point is the one requiring the most insight. “MP fights for new hospital” is never going to be national news. It will be local news if there is some specific problem or breakthrough but it is not a revelation that an MP is fighting for his or her hospital.
Similar examples are legion. “Think tank publishes policy paper,” won’t get them changing channels. “Labour Secretary of state adopts free market proposals,” might.
Rule 7: understand for what kind of outlet the journalist works
Local reporters may emphasise community impact but they probably won’t cover international relations, unless you went on a trip that can be positioned as a “jolly” etc. National media want national stories, unless your local story is a disaster.
Different mediums call for different styles of communication, time, and content. TV, radio, print and web are all different and may be on different publication timetables. Even weekly Peston and daily Newsnight are considerably different.
Given their outlet: what will this journalist want from you?
Rule 8: understand the particular journalist’s own character and agenda
Of course the vast majority of journalists in the Westminster Lobby are saints of impeccable standards and unimpeachable integrity. With incontestable impartiality, they bravely bring the public facts and insight without fear or favour.
Occasionally, you may encounter an exception:
Their agenda – some journalists bring clear biases or editorial pressures; you must understand them. Consider The Telegraph vs The Mirror.
Knowledge and experience – seasoned reporters know how to dig deeper and spot inconsistencies. Heaven have mercy on the MP who takes a journalist for a fool one way or another.
Character and past record – build relationships based on how fairly they have treated you (and others) before. Excommunicate the worst.
Trustworthiness and connections – good reporters can earn your trust but may also have relevant sources with their own agendas. What is their angle?
Pressures on them – see rule 5.
You make a mistake if you ask a Labour-leaning newspaper like The Mirror to take a pro-market story about state failure. The laughably titled “Independent” is of course the organ of the Liberal Democrats, so don’t expect a fair hearing on Brexit (or anything else quite honestly).
Do not take a nuanced story of the utmost delicacy requiring sensitive handling to a bruiser. Don’t take a knockabout story to a sensitive flower from the FT.
Rule 9: apply these guidelines in the briefing
Having understood rules 1-8, apply the following:
On or off the record – clarify whether your remarks will be attributed or not, and be clear if your words are background only.
Accuracy, brevity, clarity – avoid confusion; deliver key facts succinctly and unambiguously. Leave no room to be misunderstood.
Newsworthiness – provide insights that make stories relevant and timely.
Focus and fishing – guide the conversation firmly while being alert to prying or fishing for sensitive information. This may include seeming to suggest they have part of the story already so you are sharing nothing new: you will either be confirming a rumour or acting as a second source.
Referring to others – take care when naming others; verify permissions and motivations. Do not defame.
Five tests of what we say – is what you are saying true, necessary, beneficial, well-motivated and with permission? Sometimes you do not need permission; be sure.
The possible mistakes present themselves. Be careful and if in doubt, at least take your time before speaking. It is better to say nothing than err greatly.
Your own style and character will be tested. If you can believe it, plenty of politicians give their most waspish and cruel remarks, often using violent imagery, off the record for quoting but not attribution. I find that despicable: when I have had difficult things to say, I have said them in my own name on the record and saved background for genuine briefing. I can think of no exceptions – there may be some.
Guard your character and beware of traps.
Rule 10: answer journalists’ questions
Journalists have to fill the column-inches and seconds with something so it ought to be something useful to you: do answer their questions, whether for a short quote, in an interview or live on telly.
This includes being chased on the street and doorstepped. If you are so newsworthy they sent a camera, give them something.
There is no conflict here with rule 1: they will only have questions to ask when you put yourself in the news.
This rule may not apply if you have sinned and are the object of scandal. Don’t do that.
What if it goes wrong?
Even the most careful briefing can backfire. Mistakes or miscommunications can rapidly escalate. Clever and, rarely, nasty journalists can induce you to say what you regret. Wicked MPs may leak minor indiscretions to diarists or simply invent nonsense to injure you over some grievance real or imagined. Alas that journalists will take it6.
A wrong date, a misquoted figure, or a misunderstood context can linger unless quickly corrected. Anyone can make an inadvertent error in good faith: apologise quickly and correct the mistake.
I cannot guide you if you lie. Deliberate dishonesty will rightly destroy your credibility and spark deeper probes into your affairs. I recommend the five tests above in everything you say and write, however hard things may be. The alternative is worse.
Things do go wrong and attacks do happen. Sometimes the best course is to acknowledge any error, provide correct information and move on swiftly to prevent further speculation. If an opponent is goading you, completely ignoring the story is better than giving it oxygen.
Conclusion
Briefing journalists is both an opportunity and a responsibility. By understanding reporters’ aims, knowing your own objectives, and staying true to clear, ethical guidelines, you can shape narratives confidently and protect your causes.
Communicate consistently, stand by your values, and always bear in mind those five tests—truth, necessity, benefit, motivation, and permission. With a sound strategy, you can use media engagement to further your goals but always remember they will get you if they can. It is in their nature.
Further reading
Occasionally out of the hellscape which is the Westminster Lobby, a journalist of unimpeachable integrity and skill will arise with a desire to elaborate the workings of their profession for the benefit of the public: Rob Hutton is one such saint and I commend his work to you.
At least until they have earned your contempt. In some cases, it won’t be long!
Some just want to avoid being fired.
A major Sunday newspaper journalist once told me off like a naughty schoolboy for not bringing him any scoops. I had no idea then that I had the power to choose…
It would be nice not to have to talk about “narratives” but journalists are simple folk and need a simple story, preferably one which writes itself.
I completely gave up on the impartiality of my local paper in about 2017: it became pointless speaking to them, sadly. They would carry any old attack from my opponents and not even ask me for a response, still less take anything from me. It’s poor, but there you are.
How some live with themselves, I earnestly do not know.
Really interesting points there Steve. Like you I've engaged with the media a lot - but for totally different reasons of-course, as I'm much more likely to be on the news or a documentary talking about some tragic air accident (or more recently occasionally about flying cars and low emissions aeroplanes, which is a lot more fun as nobody died first).
I'd add an eleventh rule that certainly applies to me, but might to politicians responding to current events.
DON'T CONJECT. Stick to what is demonstrably known and true, so far as you possibly can. There used to be a well known aviation journalist who loved to conject on TV about the causes of accidents, and got a dreadful reputation and nickname in the industry as a result. There's always things that can be talked about (previous similar events, how things will be investigated, etc.), but if you genuinely don't know what happened behind the scenes of an event, or some great person is thinking or about to do, and give it your best guess on the air, 4/5 times you'll be wrong and look like an idiot as a consequence. The media won't care as it's just air time and something they can talk about, but it's a great way to lose the respect of your peers.
Steve, this is exceptionally good. I have enjoyed every word 😊